Phillips Lake, WA

Aquatic Plants Management Discussion

Mission: Foster Community Engagement in an Effective Vegetative Management Discussion in a Safe, Open way.

Thank you for your engagement. You are heard, you are seen!

News/Updates

Most Recent Update: 5:15 pm Wednesday, September 10

9/10/25—Exciting news! PLF has found a lab that will test for herbicides in water. We will be testing and publishing results to establish a baseline for monitoring for illegal/unpermitted application.
9/9/25—Postcards have been mailed out to encourage participation in the survey. A second round survey will be available from October 1 to November 1 which will include questions to help more precisely pinpoint the community’s preferences regarding management. Sign up below for email notifications to be alerted of the second round survey and management recommendations!
8/26/25—Please read this letter from Edwin Valbert explaining how he came to be in contact with PLF.
8/24/25—Please read an introduction from Robert Mulligan, the funder of this website (Ann’s employer), as well as the first two recommendations from PLF. Recommendation #1 pertains to the community’s ability to contact the Board of the Phillips Lake Association. Recommendation #2 pertains to the Lake Association’s methods for official communication with the community.
8/24/25—In order to focus discussion, we have provided an explanation of how taxes and aquatic plants mix together which will address the question of why we are asking about property taxes in the survey.
8/23/25—The Informational Resources section has been reorganized to help keep track of an increasing number of community documents posted. The same information is still available, but some links have been renamed for clarity.
8/22/25—New signs coming soon! If anyone would be willing to host a sign (like the ones that were stolen) in support of lakeforum.org please email us at phillipslakeforum.org
8/22/25—PLF has sent physical letters of request to board members for response as well as a digital copy to Edwin V. See our request under Community Documents ‘Phillips Lake Association Letter’.
8/22/25—Intended as a point of reference: PLF to date has received no specific cases of inaccuracy, in which to investigate further for the community. The sole submissions, outside forum comments, have come from Edwin Valbert. Thank you again Edwin, and PLF continues to encourage submissions, comments and the like that help shape your view as a community of the aquatic weed issue.
8/22/25—PLF believes the issue of tax is causing confusion. Please see our response to Comment 52; PLF will provide a more detailed response about the issue of taxation along with the recommendations on 8/23/25.
8/21/25—MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: PLF is prepared to release the first four recommendations based on community input. Please remember that these recommendations do not bind any group or individual to a course of action, they are merely based on what seems to be the community preferences based on the discussion held here. Recommendations will be posted 8/23/25.—update 8/24, we shifted from 4 to 2 recommendations upon determining that some of them were redundant.
8/21/25—SIGN ISSUE RESOLVED: Unfortunately our signs have been vandalized/stolen. Thank you, community members, for helping us track down the culprits. We will continue to provide an open, transparent forum.
8/17/25—Lakeside Property Owner Edwin Valbert submits informational documents to the forum. These include summaries of two discussions with aquatic vegetation management professionals, a summary of a discussion with a representative from Spencer Lake, and two prior aquatic vegetation reports from Phillips Lake. Find them posted in our Informational Resources section. Thank you, Edwin!
8/17/25—Voting is showing strong interest in mechanical control. PLF will seek out some idea of suggested practices and costs associated to present to the forum.
8/16/25—RFID tags help in tracking the signs but we do not have visual confirmation of their whereabouts currently. If anyone sees them, please send pictures or drop them back by the WDFW sign at the access. Thanks!
8/14/25—Ring footage submitted regarding sign removal. Thank you Community Member!
8/14/25—Shelton-Mason County Journal: ‘Residents see a changing lake’—Article about Island Lake residents voting on formation of a Lake Management District after previous LMD expried 8/2023. Going for 15-year, 62 cents per $1000 in 2026, 18 cents per $1000 in 2027, and beyond with 5% yearly increases.

Informational Resources

The following information has been collected to contribute to informed dialogue around this issue. If you have additional resources that you think might be relevant to the discussion, please email them to phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.

Legislative Information—laws related to lake management in WA.

Link—Chapter 36.61 RCW—Lake and Beach Management Districts

File—Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Rules for Aquatic Plant Removal and Control

Link—EPA Brochure on Reporting Environmental Violations

Ecological Information—information about aquatic plants in WA.

Link—WA State Department of Ecology Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants

Link—Burke Herbarium entry on Big Leaf Pondweed (Lake Phillips’ most common vegetation)

Link—WA State Noxious Weed Control Board (click the box marked "Aquatic" and then "Search Weed Index")

Link—WA State Toxic Algae

Herbicidal Information—information about chemicals used to control aquatic plants in WA.

Link—National Pesticide Information Center info sheet on Rodeo® (Glyphosate)

*swimming restrictions, hazards to humans and domestic animals, probable carcinogen

Link—Safety Data Sheet for Aquathol K® (Endothall)

*swimming restrictions, hazards to humans and domestic animals, NOT probable carcinogen

Link—Safety Data Sheet for Sonar® (Fluridone)

*swimming restrictions, hazards to humans and domestic animals, NOT probable carcinogen

Mechanical Information—information about machinery used to control aquatic plants.

Link—Mechanical Harvesting overview from Solitude Lake Management (includes video of equipment in action)

Community Submitted Information—these documents are unedited and presented exactly as sent to the forum.

Document—Summary of a Phillips Lake Weed Tour with Edwin Valbert and Dan Larsen with NW Aquatic Management on July 24, 2025.

PLF believes this document to be Relevant, True, and Helpful.

Document—Summary of a call Edwin Valbert had with Spencer Lake Water Management District Representative on July 14, 2025.

PLF believes this document to be Relevant, True, and Helpful.

Document—Summary of a phone call by Edwin Valbert on July 15, 2025 with Kyle Steelehammer at NW Aquatic Management.

PLF believes this document to be Relevant, True, and Helpful.

This document was reuploaded on 8/21/25 to correct Kyle’s name from Sledgehammer to Steelehammer.

Document—Phillips Lake Plant ID List from Mason County Noxious Weed Control Board, date unknown.

PLF believes this document to be Likely Relevant, True, and Helpful.

Document—Phillips Lake Report, July 13, 2019, Pickering Fire Hall Meeting by Arline Fullerton, Aquatic Plant Specialist.

PLF believes this document to be Likely Relevant, True, and Helpful.

Document—Letter from Edwin Valbert to the Phillips Lake community explaining how he came to be in contact with PLF.

From Phillips Lake Forum—documents generated by PLF

Document—Letter from PLF to members of the Board of the Phillips Lake Association, dated August 20, 2025.

Document—an explanation of how taxes and aquatic plants mix together

Document—An introduction from Robert Mulligan, funder of PLF

Document—Recommendation #1, pertaining to the community’s ability to communicate with the Board of the Phillips Lake Association

Document—Recommendation #2, pertaining to the Phillips Lake Association’s official communication with members of the Phillips Lake community

Does the presence of lake vegetation bother you?

Results

These results are updated daily. You may not see your response reflected immediately. Please do not submit multiple responses.

There are 118 respondents to the survey as of 5:30 pm, Wednesday, August 27.

Does the presence of aquatic plants limit your ability to use the lake the way you would like?

Are you in favor of chemical control of lake vegetation?

Chemical control consists of the use of herbicides to reduce or eliminate lake vegetation.

Are you in favor of manual control of lake vegetation?

Manual control consists of the physical removal of lake plants by hand-pulling or use of machinery.

Property Owners: do you support increased property tax for use in vegetation control?

Here’s what people are saying.

These responses have not been edited, they are reproduced in full for the sake of transparency.

Do you have additional questions? Would you like a more in-depth answer? Please email or post a comment. We encourage you to check comments and results regularly!

1) Lakeside Property Owner: "Been on the lake for years, I think it's quite beautiful the way it is. Thank-you Bob"
2) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am willing to contribute to the cost of plant control but not in favor of an increase in property tax. A cash contribution is one time, a tax increase is forever."

The formation of a Lake Management District requires a set time for the tax assessment (ie, 5 years or 10 years, etc). Rest assured, it would not last forever, though it could be extended or a new assessment could be applied in the future. We encourage you to consult your financial, tax, and legal advisors as it regards cash contributions for financial and legal liabilities.
3) Lake Area Property Owner: "state best not poison the lake and tax me for it Medicare gonna cover the cancer it gives me to????????????????????"

The state would not be imposing the tax. The county would collect and distribute the monies. The tax would only be self-imposed through a Lake Management District.
4) Lakeside Property Owner: "Is manual control just pulling it? Not saying I do but what if I like the weeds around my dock, would l get a choice in keeping them? Seems like chemicals kinda affect everyone whether they want it or not"

Yes, it can be just pulling it, which you can do around your property at any time without approval or permits. There is also power equipment used for this purpose and we have added information to this website about that. Thank you for this insight!
Chemical treatment would be based on the lake assessment. You would not be able to choose whether the lake in front of your property is treated or not. Since it is a confined body of water, yes, chemicals would be present everywhere in the lake. However, through application, concentration, and proper treatment, it should only affect targeted areas.
5) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am voting again because after my first vote I looked up the chemicals and I don't want my grandchildren exposed to that and dogs drinking it."

Thank you for your honesty. Glad the resources are proving helpful. We have allowed your second results to be included in the survey. If you would like your first response voided, please email us directly at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
6) Lakeside Property Owner: "I'd rather pay a one-time fee to chemically rid the lake of the weeds, and not pay a recurring tax for manual removal. Other lake communities have gotten rid of weeds successfully this way."

The lake could never undergo a full one-time chemical treatment for vegetation management. It would involve recurring treatments, only to targeted spots (not all parcels will receive treatment). This is determined after the formation of a Lake Management District followed by a water quality survey.
Chemical treatment would require a tax assessment. The tax assessment would be based on the amount of money that would need to be raised and the duration of the assessment (ie, 5 years, 10 years, etc). Manual treatment would not require a tax assessment.
For perspective, Spencer Lake has formed a Lake Management District for the situation we are discussing. Please see their budget here.
According to their budget, they are assessing owners 23 cents per $1000 of value, and have treatment costs of $8,738 (2021), $14,401 (2022), $14,667 (2023), $18758 (2024), and $16,670 (2025 proposed). Only targeted areas have been treated, not the entire lake.
If you know of other lakes or waterbodies that have done this and would like to add that information to the discussion, please email us directly at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
7) Lakeside Property Owner: "I would like them controlled if possible. If they are necessary to control other issues then they should remain"

Thank you for your insightful response. There is a chance that removal of lake vegetation could lead to an increase in algae growth and algae bloom.
8) Lakeside Property Owner: "The Lake is beautiful and one of the clearest lakes around, why would someone do something to even risk messing with its ecosystem. Why would anyone want to use chemicals this day and age?"

Through a water quality assessment it may be determined that chemical control is the most effective and/or efficient way of controlling an identified problem. Though not without risk, chemicals for this purposed are regulated and approved by the Department of Ecology and must be applied by licensed professionals.
9) Lakeside Property Owner: "The chemical approach is the worst option. You do not want anyone in lake water that has been chemically treated; having the potential to cause cancer. The chemical approach has to be completed in the months of high lake use (summer months) unlike the information that was told on Facebook saying it could be done on the fall/winter months. It will also alter the eco-balance of the lake causing increased algae blooms."

If control of lake vegetation is pursued, chemical management may be the recommended option. Water quality assessment would help determine the best course of treatment, which could be a hybrid model of both chemical and mechanical control.
Summer months would most likely be the months of treatment. Swimming restrictions would apply, and the ecological balance of the lake could be changed. This is all supported in the links above under the Ecological and Chemical categories.
If you would like to submit a link to the Facebook post and.or a picture of the information in question, email us and it will be added as a point of reference.
10) Lake Visitor: "Thanks for this space. Nice to have a conversation about it, instead of being talked at about it."

You are very welcome.
11) Lake Visitor: "One of the things I love about visiting the lake is the wildlife. It's great to escape from the city to come see dragonflies, fish, eagles, osprey, even beavers and otters! It would be sad to lose all the non-human lake visitors that rely on the aquatic plants."
12) Lakeside Property Owner: "No chemical control, at least not as first resort"
13) Lakeside Property Owner: "The broadleaf was not present in Phillips Lake about 10 years ago. We sent samples of this weed and about 5 other weeds to the county noxious weed control 8 years ago and all samples were determined to non invasive. The broadleaf pond weed has spread throughout the lake over the last 8 years. I don't care what the county says, it is an invasive ana a nuisance lake weed. It needs to be controlled."

The lake is a very different place than it was 10 years ago in many ways. Human influence in the form of land clearing, fertilization of lakeside plants, and the disturbance of the lake bed by boat wakes are some of the most compromising factors in watershed ecology.
To many, Big Leaf Pondweed is a nuisance, and some would define it as invasive or noxious. However, for legal and regulatory purposes, “noxious” and “invasive” are specifically defined terms. See the links under “Ecological Information” for more exploration.
14) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am for weed control."
15) Additional Comment: "Chemicals are for private pools and hot tubs, not community lakes. I'm for each property owner to choose whether or not to remove aquatic vegetation in front of their property by hand or equipment without the use of chemicals."

There are chemicals regulated and approved for private pools, hot tubs, and community lakes. The ones for community lakes go through regulatory approval and must be applied by licensed professionals in contrast to private water management such as pools.
It is a requirement under federal law to only use herbicides as per their labeled instructions for their labeled intended purpose.
16) Additional Comment: "Are the problem areas near very green lawns? Do fertilizers contribute to the aquatic weed growth?"

Green lawns and aquatic vegetation appearance, though correlated, do not have a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
A water quality survey would identify problem areas.
Fertilizers do promote growth in aquatic plants just as they do in terrestrial plants. Turf fertilizers in the state of Washington are required to be phosphate free, though nitrogen (the key ingredient in turf fertilizer) does promote growth.
17) Additional Comment: "Sue what chemical where you thinking of using?"

If you are “Sue’ and would like your response noted, please email us with your answer at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
18) Lakeside Property Owner: "The mechanical removal of the pond weed is an interesting idea. Do we know the estimated cost of that procedure for Phillips Lake (I assume we would need to target the bad areas in particular) and how often it would need to be done? Do they say it is not harmful to the ecosystem?"

There is not a current estimate for any form of mechanical harvesting. Size and scope of harvesting could be chosen based on goals and budget. Since noxious aquatic weeds are not present at Phillips lake control areas can be defined by the persons undertaking the task. For control of Big Leaf Pondweed a suggestion was made for two harvests (one per year) in the late spring early summer season. (See community document 1). There are multiple ways of mechanical harvesting, including but not limited to; hand removal, weed rolling, mechanical harvesters, dredging and rotovation. Any method that disrupts the lake bed is harmful to the ecosystem. Mechanical Harvesting would cut the weed growth 5 feet below the water level without disturbing the lakebed. See the Mechanical Harvesting Informational Resources for more details. This we understand to be the proposed idea in community document 1.
Many of these methods including hand removal require nothing more than having a current copy of the Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet on hand.
That document can be found here:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01728/wdfw01728.pdf
19) Daughter of Lakeside Property Owner: "Why don't u boomers and millennials chill and ask us kids what we're comfortable with srsly we swim in it u tryna wakesurf and then just bitch bout bn sore for days"

Unless you are the legal owner of the property you will not be able to vote towards the formation of Lake Management District. You are however heard and respected and your voting and comments on here are seen by those who will determine the course.
20) Lake Visitor: “Just want to make sure we keep the lake clean and chemical free. There are ways to cut mill foil without putting chemicals in that will kill fish and be dangerous to swimmers.”

Thankfully Eurasian Milfoil has not been documented at Phillips Lake. If you have a particular process in mind without using chemicals let us know phillipslakeforum@gmail.com so we can include information on that process if its not currently.
21) Lake Visitor: "No lakewide efforts, no chemicals just tend to your own property by hand. If you can’t keep up your tiny piece of heaven then I don’t know why the weeds would bother you. What came first the lake or the humans that think they need to control everything?"
22) Lakeside Property Owner: "The state of the lake today has been brought to you by (likely harsher) chemical kill off in the past. If manual treatment was working, we wouldn't be here talking about chemical options. Tight environmental regulations severely limit what chemical options for weed treatment are available and their effectiveness. There is no regulation of how much gas, oil, fireworks (did you read those labels?!) and who knows what fun chemicals come in from from public use. Unless we ban everything and everyone, we need to do like the folks that came before us and make common sense, best guesses, for our time. What happens when the public accesses the lake, drops a kid on a tube in the middle of the lake, the kid gets tied up in pond weed, panics, and bad things happen? Who's all on the other end of the lawsuits for not dealing with a known hazard using a standard practice for the lakes in Mason County? A tax at least equally shares the responsibility and is a whole lot less expensive than lawyers!"

If you are aware of any historic chemical applications to the lake, or any current or historical manual treatments of lake vegetation, please post a comment or email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com. This kind of information is helpful to open discussions.
Environmental regulations do limit what products can be used for aquatic vegetation control, both on the federal and state level. Environmental regulations do not limit the effectiveness of chemicals approved or restricted.
Although it can seem that there is no oversight on chemicals in the lake from public use, there are regulations on gas, oil, and other potential pollutants:
RCW 90.48.080 Discharge for polluting matter in waters prohibited.
Big leaf pond weed is not considered a swimming safety hazard. Please post or email any information you may have regarding this as it would be very relevant to the discussion philipslakeforum@gmail.com
There are regulations regarding use of vessels on water and towing safety. There is no liability put forth on Lake Management districts or tax assessment districts as it regards personal water safety.
RCW 79A.60.160 Personal flotation devices required
RCW 79A.60.170 Water Skiing Safety
A tax would rate each homeowner equally (for example $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value); each owner’s total cost would differ based on their assessed value.
23) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am against any chemical treatment of the lake. A manual removal by a company seems to make the more sense. I also feel that property owners that don't have the weed problem should not have to pay for those that do . I guess that thought goes with chemical treatment to the entire lake vs the problem areas only"

Phillips Lake Forum is pursing estimates and more information regarding mechanical harvesting.
Should a Lake Management District be enacted, and either chemical or mechanical or both treatments are within the assessment plan, then the cost would be split between all owners (based on the assessment and assessed value) regardless of the presence or density of vegetation at any particular property.
PLF believes mechanical harvesting can be done without the formation of a Lake Management District and can be paid individually, or as an informal collective (group of individuals). If anyone has additional information on this please post or email phllipslakeforum@gmail.com. As we learn more we will keep putting information forward.
24) Additional Comment: "I’ve seen a video circulating online that claims wake surfing is partially responsible for excessive weed growth, does anyone have more info on this?"

Any disturbance of the lake bed will promote vegetative growth, similar to the way terrestrial disturbances, such as earthwork and fires do. Deep wakes are very much a culprit! Additionally, propellers chopping aquatic vegetation causes fragmentation which can cause further spread of certain species of vegetation in certain conditions.
Operation of a motorized vessel is legal on Phillips Lake. Any proposed management plan would take that into account. However, the effects of vessel wake are regulated to a point, and it is the responsibility of each boat owner/operator to comply with regulations.
RCW 79A.60.030 Operation of a vessel in a negligent manner
25) Additional Comment: "I'm sorry if this question is stupid but Is there a reason one would be opposed to manual control?"

No question is stupid on an open forum. We are grateful for your participation in the discussion.
Opposition to manual control could include concern over disruption to the lakebed and ecosystem, concern over noise of the machinery, disposal costs and logistics of harvested vegetation and concern over the effectiveness.
26) Additional Comment: "I visit Phillips Lake occasionally and I have to say I’m impressed by the effort to hold an open and transparent forum on this topic. Thank you for putting together this website and sharing people’s written comments and the information on neighboring Spencer Lake and how they have handled the management of aquatic vegetation. While the aquatic vegetation can be a nuisance and some sort of management is likely needed, they do improve water quality and can help stabilize littoral areas during high summer use when boat wakes can cause disturbance to the lake bed. They also are a benefit to the fish community by providing cover and oxygenation the water. On a lake a small as Phillips Lake that can warm significantly in the summer, these benefits may be especially important. A targeted effort to mechanically remove the most problematic areas of vegetation may strike the right balance of managing the problem, honoring community discomfort with chemical treatment methods, and retain some benefit of aquatic vegetation in areas of the lake that are less impactful to recreational uses. A complete chemical treatment could increase the risk of algal blooms which would really dampen the beauty and enjoyment of the lake during the high recreation season."

Thank you! Phillips Lake Forum welcomes input on how to make the forum even more helpful and functional.
Littoral = Littoral Zone (littoral shelf) is the down sloping shelf of a pond or lake from the high water mark to the point sunlight penetrates through to the sediment.
This is important as it factors into the equations on how much of a lake can be treated at any given time.
Aquatic Nuisance Plant Control
“In waterbodies over 50 acres and up to 500 acres in size, the Permittee may intentionally apply herbicides to no more than 50% of the littoral zone”
Thank you foe your eloquent and accurate depiction of the interconnectedness of the plant and animal communities of Phillips Lake.
The survey results show a desire to control the weeds, with hesitancy about the the use of chemicals to do so. PLF will continue to facilitate respectful cooperation towards this goal.
27) Additional Comment: "I fear jumping to chemical treatment is a way of getting a “quick fix” rather than considering the health of the lake. We can’t forget the possibility of long term effects. After being presented with all the information mechanical harvesting seems to be the best option."

Phillips Lake Forum will look into options regarding water quality assessment. This would help understand the health of the lake. PLF will also pursue information on the cost and details of mechanical harvesting.
Efforts like these will help reveal details and expose the complete picture for all involved and affected.
If anyone would like to help with estimates of mechanical harvesting or water quality assessments please let us know phllipslakeforum@gmail.com
28) Lakeside Property Owner: "Absolutely NO chemicals! Our lake is beautiful as is and promoting algae bloom would make our pristine waterfront look swampy. I don't believe anyone would like that and property values would plunge. We've lived here over 40 years and the idea of using chemicals that can possibly cause harm to people, pets and other animals that currently thrive in this habitat is terrifying."

A proper management plan would work to balance the desired removal with the potential for algae growth. Algae growth would change the lake clarity, comfort, and usability, and evoke similar passionate responses.
See the gallery of algae blooms at the Washington State Toxic Algae website. Not all algae blooms are toxic, even if they are aesthetically unpleasant.
29) Lakeside Property Owner: "Who will treating it and how often."

No current treatment plan is proposed.
If anyone knows otherwise please post or email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
30) Lakeside Property Owner: "This information in this website is outdated and not correct. The only way to get results is to do something. The past president and board of Phillips lake have not taken the lake quality seriously. They have not tested the lake for the past few years. It’s important to know that also besides weeds there is the issue of failing septic systems. The county requires that every lot owner have there septic inspected by a licensed septic company not your brother. The amount of septic systems that are actually inspected and reported to the county is very low. So if septic systems are failing then the sewer is seeping into the lake, people who are adding chemicals to control weeds at there property it’s all an issue. The people who are behind the forum is not associated with the community and could be a scam. Be very careful what you read on the internet. If you want to find a negative on anything you can. There are no names or sources for this forum so if you don’t know who is posting this information. Some is informative but others are not true or very old information."

Please email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com if you feel that there is specific information in our resources or in individual comments that you feel is outdated or inaccurate. We strive to provide the best information to facilitate an informed discussion.
This site is proving to be very well visited and engaging its visitors. These issues and concerns are being heard and seen.
Past Phillips Lake Association President, (we believe this to be Edwin Valbert according to website below) or previous or past board members if you have a response to this that you would like address please let us know at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
https://phillipslake.org/annual-2024-association-meeting/
If anyone has information on when the lake was last tested and the results please post or email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
Septic Systems are legal, and they do impact soils and waters. Aquatic vegetation management plans would take that into account. Septic Systems are regulated and do require inspection.
https://masoncountywa.gov/departments/public_health/environmental_health/sewage_septic/maintainenance_of_oss.php
Phillips Lake Forum does not have any affiliation with Philips Lake Community Association but does plan to present a summary to the Association at such time that it provides helpful guidance. PLF will simultaneously be presenting summaries to Mason County for interpretation, and the Shelton-Mason county journal.
PLF is not a scam.
Anyone is welcome to add their name to comments if they feel comfortable, that option allows people to speak freely and gives us all a more worldly view of the issue.
Please let us know what you would like to see a source for the is not currently shown. phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
31) Lakeside Property Owner: "Shark metal buoy is illegal and is causing harm to the fish and could cause serious injuries to boaters and skiers. Needs to be removed immediately. Please make a website that also includes illegal buoys and laws for lakes."

This website was created for an aquatic plant management discussion. If visitors would like to see this transition into a more encompassing Phillips Lake website please post or email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com so the founder can see that need.
Lake Laws including buoys can be found at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/
If there is a specific way the buoy is affecting aquatic plants, please post or email so that can be brought to light and addressed.
32) Lakeside Property Owner: "We’ve owned property on the lake for over 20 years, and this vegetation problem is a recent and growing issue. As this is a public lake, I firmly believe it is the state’s responsibility to maintain it at the same standard it was when we purchased. Homeowners should not be forced to shoulder the burden for the state’s lack of control over invasive weeds being introduced. When we drive through Idaho on our way to Washington, we’re required to have our boat inspected and hot-washed to prevent the spread of invasive species. If neighboring states are taking this seriously, why is Washington not stepping up, enforcing stronger measures, and covering the cost of proper maintenance? These weeds directly impact the usability and enjoyment of the lake. While we manually pull and discard them, this is not a viable or sustainable long-term solution, nor should it fall on homeowners to solve a problem that originates from inadequate oversight."

State responsibility is unfortunately not a variable we can control in this situation. What this reminds us to do is vote and consider running for office.
Fortunately, Phillips Lake does not have noxious invasive weeds, however if the lake did have that problem the state could and likely would spearhead the efforts towards control and eradication. Additionally, there are grants available for removal of noxious weeds in riparian and aquatic zones, but again, this is not applicable to our situation. Phillips Lake’s vegetation collection is considered beneficial, which causes difficulty in balancing the health of the lake with human use of the lake.
33) Lake Visitor: "After watching on the sideline for a few days I am taking the survey now. I'm so pleased by the ease of use, by the conversation being had and the safe place to do it in. If its not to presumptive to ask whom is doing all of this?"

Not presumptive at all, this is a space of safe, honest and transparent discussion.
Hello! I’m Ann and I manage and facilitate this website lakeforum.org. I have been hired by a private individual who cares deeply about Phillips Lake, its community, and inclusive decision-making. My role is to create an open, safe, honest and transparent discussion about aquatic vegetation at Phillips Lake with the intent of people being allowed to ask questions and express concerns without fear or discomfort. I have been charged to provide well-sourced unbiased information in response to people’s comments on this page, and to maintain an un-edited record of the discussion. If you have any thoughts about how I can do better, please email me at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
34) Lakeside Property Owner: "This forum seems very biased to a specific opinion.. isnt the purpose of a forum to be unbiased.? The weeds in the lake are a problem.. and have been for a long time. For those that have boats with propellers these weeds are problematic. Please do your research before posting inaccurate information.. There are SEVERAL lakes using this process to safely rid the lakes of this weed.. im certainly unimpressed by the information on this website as well as the biased approach"

The comments on this forum and the results of the survey have been published faithfully without any editing. Any bias would be the in the way public opinion is polling. If you feel that a response by Phillips Lake Forum shows bias please let us know at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com so we can address it promptly.
Information regarding other lakes management techniques, products used, costs incurred etc all would be immensely helpful for members of the forum please post or email us phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
35) Additional Comment: "Who is behind this website. No names mean a keyboard warrior that isn’t wanting to have there names on the website."

Again I’m Ann and I’m here to help. I’m good at a keyboard but I’m not a warrior! This website is funded by a private individual and entrusted to me to facilitate a fair and open discussion. If you have a question directly for me I will answer it if it is relevant to the forum. If you have a message for the funder I can guarantee that they are watching this. If you want to post a question or email phllilpslakeforum@gmail.com I will offer them the opportunity to respond as I have others.
36) Additional Comment: "On the website wakeboatscausecancer. This website states that wakeboard boats can cause cancer in humans."

This does not appear to be a real website, and the claim made in this comment seems obviously implausible. We rate this as Not Relevant, Not True, Not Helpful.
However, the goal of this website is to facilitate transparent discussion, and in that spirit, your comment will remain published.
37) Lakeside Property Owner: "I noticed that the picture of your signs is at the boat ramp. If you read the rcw and WAC’s you will see that the signs are illegal there. You can only place them on your property. Not on state property or county easements. So it would appear that the ones illegally posted on state and county property could have been removed by the state or county. Before whoever you are place signs make sure your doing it legally."

Your notice of sign placement is accurate. Thank you for bringing this to our attention as it helps us to do better.
Phillips Lake Forum sincerely apologizes to the entire community for any misplacement by our volunteers of certain signs.
PLF has received and reviewed footage of signage being removed from private property, by a private individual, in a private vehicle.
38) Lakeside Property Owner: "The website is filled with fake news, and biased information. So sad how this is putting scare tactics on elderly people who love their homes on the lake. You should be ashamed and embarrassed by this. If you really care about the environment and the lake you would be transparent instead of lying to get a fire started. Cowards hide behind a website and push their agenda on others."

As previously stated, If anyone feels any information presented on this website is inaccurate please bring it to our attention at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com. We will review and amend immediately for accuracy. The exception to this is Community Submitted Documents and Comments, which are posted in their unaltered state.
If fear is felt it is an honest reaction to the open discussion being carried out. Though we can not affect how information affects each individual we do believe it is working towards a greater goal and empathize with the concerns of the community.
PLF is not embarrassed nor ashamed about our facilitation of this discussion. Opinions are respected here, and each opinion is the solely the property of their owner.
PLF’s mission is to ‘Foster Community Engagement in an Effective Vegetative Management Discussion in a Safe, Open way’. This mission allows for people to make informed decisions and formulate informed opinions, benefitting all affected parties.
PLF fully supports transparency. If anyone feels there is lack of transparency please let us know phillipslakeforum@gmail.com. PLF looks forward to continuing to improve the forum.
39) Lake Area Worker: "Where I'm from we fight against environmental racism, and you guys want to do it to yourself?"

Fortunately we do not see any evidence of racism in this discussion.
Any actions taken towards aquatic vegetation control in Phillips lake, would be self-imposed as no mandatory treatment is required of any vegetation in Phillips lake.
40) Additional Comment: "The people criticizing this website are probably the same people who were censoring comments on the Facebook page. The whole point is to have an open discussion about what the majority feels is best for the lake. Anonymity allows people to do just that without fear of repercussions by those who don’t agree. I’ve also noticed that no comments have been taken down, regardless of their opinion. so thank you to whomever is running this site!"

Phillips Lake Forum has observed many similar patterns at the Facebook platform.
PLF supports open discussion. Open discussion will allow for a decision to be made with full participation and input from all affected parties.
PLF does not remove or alter community submissions. We do reserve the right to alter our responses to correct inaccuracies. Any such corrections (aside from spelling/grammar errors) will be noted for the sake of transparency.
Thank you for your kind words. We appreciate the encouragement.
41) Additional Comment: "Why does anyone have a problem with the shark buoy? Whenever we have friends down the kids always love it. I guess we should ban everyone’s inflatables that are anchored since they’re not technically legal buoys? Makes no sense."

Please see our response to Comment 31. The shark buoy is outside the purview of this discussion. Unless there is broad community support for expanding the focus of this forum, we cannot offer helpful commentary on the shark buoy.
42) Lakeside Property Owner: "Very sad that this is so biased towards your agenda. There is supposed to be all comments posted. All comments are not posted. Numerous comments have asked for the people behind this no response."

Hi there, this is Ann again! The stated agenda of this website is to facilitate an open conversation about aquatic vegetation management in Phillips Lake. I can assure you that every comment I have recieved has been reproduced in full. Since this is not my full-time job, I cannot post every comment immediately, and the research required to provide accurate information takes time. If you are concerned that a comment has gotten lost, please post it again or email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com so I can ensure that your viewpoint is represented.
43) Lakeside Property Owner: "This survey is not authorized by any one affiliated with the Phillips Lake Community. They were hired by a third party to do the survey. Don’t believe anything that is posted on this website it a fake page with deceptive information."

This survey does not require any authorization as it is merely a tool to facilitate discussion. The results of this survey do not bind any organization or individual to any plan of action.
If you feel that any particular piece of information is inaccurate or misleading, please contact us at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com so we can assess it and remove it if needed.
44) Additional Comment: "Some responses are so hostile, this is the best conversation we've had about it so far. So thankyou Ann please don't be discouraged by some of our neighbors instigative comments. I did not know how little I knew! I've learned so in a few days of this site. Be nice people she's helping all of us, and apparently someone else is paying her to do. Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth."

Thank you for your kind words! Please let me know if there is any other information you would like on aquatic vegetation management or if there is any question I should add to a second round of the survey to help facilitate further discussion.
45) Relative of Lakeside Property Owner" "Voting for my grandma"

Great! Thank you for helping your Grandma.
46) Lakeside Property Owner: "I’m not in favor of any treatments"

Your voice is heard.
47) Lakeside Property Owner: "RELEASE THE CHEM-STEIN FILES"
48) Additional Comment: "Kids do love that damn buoy. lol"

I need to see this buoy. —Ann
49) Additional Comment: "If you are not associated with the lake association? Have you reached out to the lake association? Do they have a plan or or any input or guidance?"

Thank you for this wonderful suggestion. Yes this is something that would be incredibly helpful that we are planning on doing. Unfortunately the association has no known posted phone, email or way of correspondence.
If anyone has official contact information for the Phillips Lake Board; Please email phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
According to the minutes posted
https://phillipslake.org/annual-2024-association-meeting/
we are looking for: Dwain F., Connie, C., Edwin V., Bob, S. and Janae, L. if you are any of these people we encourage you to reach out phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
Edwin V. has provided PLF with documents so we will begin by sending a request to him.
50) Additional Comment: "I’ve been seeing a lot of comments from online bullies calling this website “fake news” or making accusations of bias without actually citing any specific inaccuracies. I’ve found it to be very informative and appreciate the platform to learn and have a discussion."

Thank you for your kind words. If there is any additional information you’d like us to track down, please let us know at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
51) Lakeside Property Owner: "I’ve been watching this forum for about a week now, reading the comments and links to articles and regulatory sites. In response to comment 22: You stated “If manual treatment was working we wouldn’t be here talking about chemical options”. By “manual treatment” do you mean a couple of people pulling some weeds by hand? As far as I know there has never been a large scale community effort to manually or mechanically remove the broadleaf pond weed. In response to comment 30: You stated “this information is outdated and not correct”. Which information do you mean? If you know that to be the case, please provide us with the updated and correct information. In fact every comment that has criticized the accuracy of the information on this forum has not provided us with what specifically is inaccurate. You obviously feel passionately about this topic, so if you have any information that might help us as a community to make a more informed decision, please, this would be a great time to share it. In response to comment 31 You stated “shark metal buoy is illegal and is causing harm to fish”. First off, what an out of left field comment for what this forum is pertaining to. How exactly is the buoy causing harm to fish? Also, the “shark metal buoy” is clearly plastic. And as far as causing “serious injuries to boaters and skiers” I suppose you could say that about anything boaters and skiers are careless enough to run into. Just because a chemical is regulated and approved for treatment doesn’t necessarily make it safe. There are many chemicals in our food that are approved by our regulatory agencies that are banned in other countries for known health risks. While I think chemically treating the lake is likely to have a very minimal impact on our health in comparison to other carcinogens and environmental toxins that are present in most of our modern lives, I think a better starting point would be manual or mechanical removal."

Thank you for following! PLF appreciates your detailed response.
Poster of Comment 22 - if you would like to respond to Comment 51 please use the Open Discussion and reference comment 22 in your post.
PLF has not found evidence supporting any organized, paid, hired, or methods otherwise defined as mechanical practices that have been executed on Phillips lake, excluding hand removal by individual parties.
Poster of Comment 30 - if you would like to respond to Comment 51 please use the Open Discussion and reference comment 30 in your post.
PLF has responded about the buoy, see PLF response to Comment 31
PLF has responded about watercraft safety, see PLF response to Comment 22
Poster of Comment 31 - if you would like to respond to Comment 51 please use the Open Discussion and reference comment 31 in your post.
Legally done, the chemical application of herbicide to the lake should indeed have a minimal impact beyond the impact to the identified target. Federal, State and Local regulations and permitting insure that applications are as safe as possible for the legal use of said chemical or product.
Mechanical, chemical or a hybrid model could all be used as a starting point.
52) Lakeside Property Owner: "The last question in this survey is asking about taxes. There is no tax being charged nor was that ever discussed. Again information is incorrect and thrown out to see if people bite on it. When the information is years old and don’t know when it was taken it seems not a credible source. Great that the family that has paid for this information and website actually is the same person adding such information to the website. Is that not a biased opinion just asking for a friend. The lake association has a wonderful new amount of people who want to be a part of the group to help benefit our community. This is a non governmental organization but is trying to make this the best possible place. But if there are members who are undermining the community group that they are supposed to be involved with it is very sad. This is why so many of our neighbors have refused to join or participate in the community association. Let’s make sure that we all have the right information and true values for the lake."

BELOW CONTAINS IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION FOUND TO BE OF KEEN INTEREST BY THE COMMUNITY
There is currently no tax being charged nor a tax being proposed.
Any aquatic plant control, mechanical or chemical, can be paid for by either private money or taxation or both.
In order for a chemical aquatic herbicide to be used in a waterbody you must apply for a Hydraulic Project Application (HPA) and an Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit (APAM). This document is posted in our Legislative Information section.
In order to fulfill requirements of those permits the lake would need to have an entity that is legally able to make decisions for the water body to sponsor the project. Since the county and state see the plants in question to be beneficial to the waterbody (not noxious) they have no reason to sponsor treatment, in turn the only additional way to sponsor treatment is through an HOA or Water Management District, aka Lake Management District in this case.
A Water Management District must have a stated purpose and a method of funding. If the stated purpose is aquatic plant management then an aquatic plant management plan can be formed based on water surveys required. That process will identify a total cost projected for treatment and the duration, time and frequency of treatment. If the full cost of the aquatic plant management plan is funded privately, then there would be a $0.00 assessment. However any monies not privately funded would need to be augmented by a tax assessment to fully complete the cost of the aquatic plant management plan outlined.
[For example Spencer Lake is spending $15,000 per year on treatment for 10 years ($150,000.00 total) they raise $10,000 privately; $140,000.00 has to assessed]
This assessment is spread out over all the properties and charged based on property value, Spencer lake ended up at $.23 per $1000 of assessed value, raising automatically 5% per year, which is common in most assessments and the maximum it can legally raise each year by law.
Once the full scope of the project, its cost and the amount of assessment then a vote would be conducted regarding the approval or rejection of the assessment. This is what Island Lake is doing right as we speak. That article is posted in our News/Updates section.
No Management District can exist in perpetuity under Washington state law.
Property owners would have notice, a public comment period and a legal vote for both (a) formation of a Lake Management District and (b) assessment (even if it is $0.00).
In Summary: No tax currently exists, no tax is being proposed, chemical application would require an assessment, that assessment could potentially be $0.00 if enough private money was raised, if enough private money is not raised it would be made up in the form of tax. This would all be investigated and voted on and an not be forced upon the community without a vote.
Please submit any questions or additional comments as this is a dense topic, we hope it is finding helpful to the community phillipslakeforum@gmail.com
ABOVE CONTAINS IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION FOUND TO BE OF KEEN INTEREST BY THE COMMUNITY
No family is associated with PLF. PLF is independently financed by a private individual and facilitated by me, Ann.
PLF has responded about ownership, see PLF response to Comment 33.
All information is (a) posted in the public domain, more often than not by government agencies, or (b) submitted by members of the community. The Funder does pay to register and host this site, and pays for my wages to maintain the page and facilitate discussion. To date the only expenditures of PLF are those two line items. No information has been paid for.
PLF has received no comments or indication that anyone has refused to join or participate in the Phillips Lake Community Association. If you feel marginalized by the Association we encourage you to take it up with them, as this forum is intended only for aquatic weed discussion in Phillips Lake.
As far as having “right information and true values”, PLF could not agree more. We strive to provide accurate, up-to-date information and facilitate open communication so that all members of the community can develop an informed opinion and arrive democratically at a course of action that is in the best interests of the lake.
53) Lake Area Property Owner: "I think we have the ability to control the foliage without chemicals, if we manually maintain it and make sure we are not adding any substance to the lake that encourages the problem, I believe we can keep the title of the cleanest lake in Mason County."

Based on the passionate involvement of the community, PLF is certain that Phillips Lake will maintain the title of Cleanest Lake in Mason County. 🏆
54) Additional Comment: "Can I self treat around my dock with chemicals if I don't feel like hand pulling them?"

You may not treat aquatic weeds in the lake yourself. Application of aquatic herbicide is subject to a Hydraulic Project Approval, which for aquatic herbicide requires a licensed professional applicator as well as a sponsor for the project and permit approval. It is not possible for an individual to meet those criteria. See these guidelines posted in our Legislative Information section.
It is very important to note that ANY ILLEGAL application of herbicide in the lake body, which includes application of aquatic herbicide by an individual, is subject to water pollution regulations.
RCW 90.48.140 - Penalty of up to $10,000.00 and costs of prosecution or up to 364 days in jail, or both. Per occurrence
If you know of or witness illegal discharge, please anonymously tip IMMEDIATELY to the EPA (https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations) and Department of Ecology (https://ecology.wa.gov/footer-pages/report-an-environmental-issue/statewide-reporting-form-erts). The urgency of that situation puts it outside the purview of this forum.
55) Lake Area Property Owner: "It boggles my mind why some people are so passionately in favor of chemical treatment. If we can the same result with no chemicals, wouldn’t that be the obvious choice?"

This would be a great question to ask in our Open Discussion section with honest curiosity about others’ perspectives, and hopefully you will get a sincere answer.
56) Lake Area Property Owner: "Ann when you are done moderating this can you come help me with my marriage. LOL"

Oh, I am definitely not qualified for that.
I’m not sure what your specific conflict is, but I have exactly two pieces of marriage advice: 1) Remember that it’s not you vs. your partner, it’s you and your partner on the same team trying to achieve the same goals and build a life together. 2) Listening is an active process. It shows respect to give your partner your full attention, even if you feel like you already know what they’re saying.
If neither of those is helpful to your situation, I’m not your gal. Best of luck!
57) Additional Comment: "I feel like the people that are so angry and keep saying fake and outdated news just need a hug. Try to smile and be nice and open to others and other ideas other than your own. Kindness can go a long way in life."

Communicating on the internet is difficult and can bring out the worst in people, but I am certain that the people who are most vividly expressing their frustration on this forum would like me in person, and I would like them. Maybe someday we’ll get that chance. —Ann
58) Lake Visitor: "My friend puts the pesticide out on the weeds and I'm sure she's just going to keep doing it"

WE CAN NOT STRESS ENOUGH: ILLEGAL, NON-PROFESSIONALLY APPLIED APPLICATION OF HERBCIDE/PESTICIDE IS THE MOST POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DAMAGING ACTION, FOR BOTH HUMANS AND LAKE ECOLOGY.
See PLF response to comment #54
To reiterate, if you witness or know anyone applying products to the waterbody report anonymously ASAP.
https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations
https://ecology.wa.gov/footer-pages/report-an-environmental-issue/statewide-reporting-form-erts
59) Additional Comment: "We can tell from the comments that some people were some real bullies in school. Didn't you'all learn from your primary school teacher: be nice, be civil, respect and do unto others as you'd have done to you."

Classic Golden Rule, good advice, in my opinion. —Ann
60) Additional Comment: "We strongly oppose the use of chemicals to alter the natural balance of the ecosystem of our lake. As the use of motorized boats and jet skis has increased over the years, so have the weeds. The fish and birds depend on the lake, and we must not interfere. Our family fishes, boats (non-motorized) and swims and we are concerned that chemicals will make our lake unsafe and unhealthy. This is a public lake for all and no small group of people should be able to decide the future of our beautiful lake by adding chemicals. Perhaps limiting the use of fertilizers on lawns and the resulting runoff as one preventive is a more sound approach moving forward. Let's look at the possible causes. A bandaid chemical approach is not the answer. Let it be."
61) Additional Comment: "This is a scam. These folks are providing false and misleading information. This is a company drumming up work for themselves. No transparency other than throwing Edwin Valberts name out there."

This is not a scam. Our intent has only ever been to facilitate an open discussion about aquatic vegetation management for the Phillips Lake community. We cite Edwin Valbert frequently as he is so far the only person to send us specific information about lake weed management. If you feel that any of the information we have posted so far is false or misleading, please tell us which information so we can review it and correct the record. We can be reached at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
62) Additional Comment: "Is this the small group of people Susan F. Spoke about at the annual meeting? I am a board member and have had no one reach out to me about this."

PLF does not know who fully comprises the board. We are going off of the only published information we could find; that site and document lists these 5 people as being re-elected in 2024. It does not include Susan F.
63) Additional Comment: "I read the letter to the board referenced here although I have not received a mailed copy. I think it is absurd to think that we as a board can meet and respond by August 28. it would be more appropriate to request a response in 1-3 months. We only meet about 4 times per year."

Thank you! PLF has no idea how many members are on the board, nor how they operate. We have only recently recieved the board’s email from board secretary Connie C. We will send the request digitally to that address.
We agree that the timeframe is hasty based on your added information. We look forward to hearing from a representative of the board when it may be appropriate to expect a response. We thankfully and patiently will compromise on that date.
As an interesting exercise, you might try to reach out to the board as we did. Our starting place was phillipslake.org. This effort was the impetus behind our first recommendation, that the board should establish and publish some clear and reliable method of contact.
64) Lakeside Property Owner: "This is a very interesting website that was created by someone not affiliated with Phillips Lake, they are making recommendations that no one asked for. Making accusations about other websites and people who are affiliated with the lake. They then say they have a sickness from chemicals that is the topper. The person Ann is just a hired person to put in what she is told and respond appropriately. This should be illegal because of how it was done but everyone has a right to free speech even if it is all about their personal opinion. If the Mulligan person is a real person or just someone who is posing as them so they don’t get caught for their actions in this. Food for thought very poor way to work with people, especially neighbors."

Some clarfications: Robert is affiliated with Phillips Lake. He is not a lakeside property owner, but by our definition, the Phillips Lake community encompasses more than just the property owners. People who own property in the area, lake vistors, and people who work around Phillips Lake all may have a vested interest in decisions made about the lake.
Ann, on the other hand, is not a member of the Phillips Lake community. You are correct that she was simply hired to build and maintain the website to facilitate discussion.
We are not certain what you mean by the phrase “making accusations about other websites”. We have merely pointed out that phillipslake.org does not have any posted contact information or a complete list of board members. If you have reason to believe it does, please let us know where we can find it.
It is also true that no one asked for our recommendations, however, it is PLF’s opinion that they should have. Aquatic weed management is a topic that has ecological and financial implications that deserve community-wide input.
We have recieved some feedback that this has actually been a good way to work with neighbors, but if you have feedback on how we can improve the process, please let us know at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com.
65) Additional Comment: "I asked question #64 staring that I was a board member. Do you read? You advised me to reach out to the board!!!"

I’m going to presume you mean question #63. If I am wrong about that please let me know. Apologies that I was unclear in my response. Let me try again.
Since you are a board member, you may be unaware just how difficult it is to contact the board. You might try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who hears that there is an aquatic weed control plan being discussed on a community Facebook page that they do not have access to. The phillipslake.org website mentions a potential herbicide plan in an unofficial summary of the minutes from the 2024 annual meeting, but there is no update from 2025. There is also no list of board members and no posted contact information. How would you go about trying to contact the board in this instance?
In Robert’s case, he hired me to build and maintain this site to see if he was the only one who had questions and to prepare to provide the board with some recommendations based on a broad community discussion. There has been some criticism of his method, however, it does seem that he had limited options. What would your advice be?
66) Additional Comment: "The Facebook page that this has referenced is not any part of the PlA. Not their website and has nothing to do with them. It’s a Private page that only exists for people who live or have property on the lake. They are not required to let anyone on the webpage that cant show they live or have properties here. It says a private website. No negative or rude comments are allowed."

PLF does not necessarily have any problem with people using Facebook to connect as a community. However, as you pointed out, the page in question is private and unaffiliated with PLA. This makes it an inappropriate channel for the deliberation of official decisions about the lake. Our concern is that until the establishment of Phillips Lake Forum, the private Facebook community was the only venue for discussion of aquatic vegetation management.
In recommendation #2, we suggest that PLA establish an official and appropriate public venue as an alternative to the unofficial discussions that were happening on Facebook. We are not proposing that PLF be that venue; it was merely intended to be an emergency measure in the absence of an official and appropriate venue.
67) Additional Comment: "If this Robert is a real person and doesn't own property on or near the lake, what would be his motivation to pay for a very misleading website. This forum originally said it was doing this for feedback on the weed issue. But instead, they are given two recommendations on how and what the Phillips Lake Association board does or doesn't do. There is a meeting that is for all the community in July, the people that live or have places on the lake were out in force this year. This is how the community does find out information. The family members of a few that didn't attend the meeting have been not very well informed on the meeting. Its back in school playing telephone the story changes every time its told. If Robert who is a real person, has so much money to spend step up and pay for the mechanically removal of the weeds. Instead of giving a website and recommendations to the PLAB and making derogative comments about the Community FB page that has no affiliation to the Board. FYI Spencer Lake weed control is all by chemicals, no hand or mechanically removal is done. If this was not relayed with the information that was received."

Robert’s motivation for paying for this website is that he heard there was a plan to control weeds in the lake with herbicides, but there was no official posting of this plan by the board nor any way to contact the board to ask questions or raise concerns. Is the in-person meeting the only current method for a person to learn about the board’s decisions for the lake or provide questions/comments on those decisions? If so, our recommendations definitely still stand. Even if there is no official plan to control lake weeds with herbicides or any other method, this does seem like an unneccessary amount of time and effort required to learn that. We welcome an alternative.
Whether or not Robert should contribute toward the mechanical removal of weeds is a secondary question that should be asked after it is determined if the Phillips Lake Community prefers mechanical removal of weeds. Although the survey on this website seems to indicate slightly stronger support for mechanical over chemical control of aquatic vegetation, this response only reflects 117 respondents to the survey, which is still short of the full count of the Phillips Lake community. We have not yet released our recommendations on methods of aquatic vegetation control because we feel we do not yet have adequate data.
In the summary that Edwin Valbert provided us of his conversation with a representative from Spencer Lake Water Management District, it does mention that Spencer Lake secured a permit to chemically treat their weeds. Whether Phillips Lake’s treatment needs are identical to Spencer Lake’s treatment needs is unknown, but seems unlikely.
68) Lakeside Property Owner: "Comment 67: If you take public bus and you know the bus has bad brakes do you put your grandkids on that bus? Probably not. If Robert or anyone is using a public lake for their enjoyment and they are aware of what they feel is a hazard would they put their grandkids in that position? We all have differing motivations, but your overly aggressive ownership of something that is public (not yours) while challenging someone that for all we is just someone who got frustrated with no where to go for answers. This site is doing nothing more than filling a huge void of information, the point to which we are at is arguably the boards own doing."

It is true that this website is born out of an inability to contact the board or find reliable information on their plans, hence our first two recommendations.
69) Additional Comment: "These comments are eye opening. Blessings to you for exposing peoples true colors."

I like to think that true colors are revealed person-to-person in everday actions instead of on the internet, but I appreciate that you feel you’ve gained some insight here.
Is anyone else ready to just talk about the lake weeds? —Ann
70) Additional Comment: "This is for all of the people that are using this site for their own agendas and negativity. GET OVER YOUR SELF ! This site is for finding a solution of a weed problem and the Phillips Lake COMMUNITY !! They have counseling for people that can’t work well with others ."
71) Lakeside Property Owner: "First of all, I would like to thank this website for giving the Phillips Lake Community a place to discuss the weed issue. It has given us an informational place for the weed discussion. I have done my own study of the broad leaf pond weed and learned it is a native plant. It has many good properties for the health of the lake water. The presence of this plant in the lake currently is really low and can be treated in its early stage. There are many different tests and studies that need to be done before treatments. Once these are completed than as a community let's discuss the treatment options. This is not a one and done thing. It can be done manually or mechanically without the use of non-natural more problem causing chemical herbicides. So, appreciate our very clear water, low weed presence, and how lucky we are to have a piece of heaven on earth and let's work together to find the best solution to keep the weeds in check."

Let’s keep the discussion going.

Please add comments here if you have already taken the survey or wish to participate in the discussion without answering the survey. Alternately, you can email us directly at phillipslakeforum@gmail.com!

Phillips Lake, WA

Aquatic Plants Management Discussion

Thank you for your engagement. You are heard, you are seen!

News/Updates

Informational Resources

Legislative Information—laws related to lake management in WA.

Ecological Information—information about aquatic plants in WA.

Herbicidal Information—information about chemicals used to control aquatic plants in WA.

Mechanical Information—information about machinery used to control aquatic plants.

Community Submitted Information—these documents are unedited and presented exactly as sent to the forum.

From Phillips Lake Forum—documents generated by PLF

Community Survey

Does the presence of lake vegetation bother you?

Results

Does the presence of aquatic plants limit your ability to use the lake the way you would like?

Are you in favor of chemical control of lake vegetation?

Are you in favor of manual control of lake vegetation?

Property Owners: do you support increased property tax for use in vegetation control?

1) Lakeside Property Owner: "Been on the lake for years, I think it's quite beautiful the way it is. Thank-you Bob"

2) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am willing to contribute to the cost of plant control but not in favor of an increase in property tax. A cash contribution is one time, a tax increase is forever."

3) Lake Area Property Owner: "state best not poison the lake and tax me for it Medicare gonna cover the cancer it gives me to????????????????????"

4) Lakeside Property Owner: "Is manual control just pulling it? Not saying I do but what if I like the weeds around my dock, would l get a choice in keeping them? Seems like chemicals kinda affect everyone whether they want it or not"

5) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am voting again because after my first vote I looked up the chemicals and I don't want my grandchildren exposed to that and dogs drinking it."

6) Lakeside Property Owner: "I'd rather pay a one-time fee to chemically rid the lake of the weeds, and not pay a recurring tax for manual removal. Other lake communities have gotten rid of weeds successfully this way."

7) Lakeside Property Owner: "I would like them controlled if possible. If they are necessary to control other issues then they should remain"

8) Lakeside Property Owner: "The Lake is beautiful and one of the clearest lakes around, why would someone do something to even risk messing with its ecosystem. Why would anyone want to use chemicals this day and age?"

10) Lake Visitor: "Thanks for this space. Nice to have a conversation about it, instead of being talked at about it."

11) Lake Visitor: "One of the things I love about visiting the lake is the wildlife. It's great to escape from the city to come see dragonflies, fish, eagles, osprey, even beavers and otters! It would be sad to lose all the non-human lake visitors that rely on the aquatic plants."

12) Lakeside Property Owner: "No chemical control, at least not as first resort"

14) Lakeside Property Owner: "I am for weed control."

15) Additional Comment: "Chemicals are for private pools and hot tubs, not community lakes. I'm for each property owner to choose whether or not to remove aquatic vegetation in front of their property by hand or equipment without the use of chemicals."

16) Additional Comment: "Are the problem areas near very green lawns? Do fertilizers contribute to the aquatic weed growth?"

17) Additional Comment: "Sue what chemical where you thinking of using?"

19) Daughter of Lakeside Property Owner: "Why don't u boomers and millennials chill and ask us kids what we're comfortable with srsly we swim in it u tryna wakesurf and then just bitch bout bn sore for days"

20) Lake Visitor: “Just want to make sure we keep the lake clean and chemical free. There are ways to cut mill foil without putting chemicals in that will kill fish and be dangerous to swimmers.”

21) Lake Visitor: "No lakewide efforts, no chemicals just tend to your own property by hand. If you can’t keep up your tiny piece of heaven then I don’t know why the weeds would bother you. What came first the lake or the humans that think they need to control everything?"

24) Additional Comment: "I’ve seen a video circulating online that claims wake surfing is partially responsible for excessive weed growth, does anyone have more info on this?"

25) Additional Comment: "I'm sorry if this question is stupid but Is there a reason one would be opposed to manual control?"

29) Lakeside Property Owner: "Who will treating it and how often."

31) Lakeside Property Owner: "Shark metal buoy is illegal and is causing harm to the fish and could cause serious injuries to boaters and skiers. Needs to be removed immediately. Please make a website that also includes illegal buoys and laws for lakes."

33) Lake Visitor: "After watching on the sideline for a few days I am taking the survey now. I'm so pleased by the ease of use, by the conversation being had and the safe place to do it in. If its not to presumptive to ask whom is doing all of this?"

35) Additional Comment: "Who is behind this website. No names mean a keyboard warrior that isn’t wanting to have there names on the website."

36) Additional Comment: "On the website wakeboatscausecancer. This website states that wakeboard boats can cause cancer in humans."

39) Lake Area Worker: "Where I'm from we fight against environmental racism, and you guys want to do it to yourself?"

41) Additional Comment: "Why does anyone have a problem with the shark buoy? Whenever we have friends down the kids always love it. I guess we should ban everyone’s inflatables that are anchored since they’re not technically legal buoys? Makes no sense."

42) Lakeside Property Owner: "Very sad that this is so biased towards your agenda. There is supposed to be all comments posted. All comments are not posted. Numerous comments have asked for the people behind this no response."

43) Lakeside Property Owner: "This survey is not authorized by any one affiliated with the Phillips Lake Community. They were hired by a third party to do the survey. Don’t believe anything that is posted on this website it a fake page with deceptive information."

45) Relative of Lakeside Property Owner" "Voting for my grandma"

46) Lakeside Property Owner: "I’m not in favor of any treatments"

47) Lakeside Property Owner: "RELEASE THE CHEM-STEIN FILES"

48) Additional Comment: "Kids do love that damn buoy. lol"

49) Additional Comment: "If you are not associated with the lake association? Have you reached out to the lake association? Do they have a plan or or any input or guidance?"

50) Additional Comment: "I’ve been seeing a lot of comments from online bullies calling this website “fake news” or making accusations of bias without actually citing any specific inaccuracies. I’ve found it to be very informative and appreciate the platform to learn and have a discussion."

53) Lake Area Property Owner: "I think we have the ability to control the foliage without chemicals, if we manually maintain it and make sure we are not adding any substance to the lake that encourages the problem, I believe we can keep the title of the cleanest lake in Mason County."

54) Additional Comment: "Can I self treat around my dock with chemicals if I don't feel like hand pulling them?"

55) Lake Area Property Owner: "It boggles my mind why some people are so passionately in favor of chemical treatment. If we can the same result with no chemicals, wouldn’t that be the obvious choice?"

56) Lake Area Property Owner: "Ann when you are done moderating this can you come help me with my marriage. LOL"

57) Additional Comment: "I feel like the people that are so angry and keep saying fake and outdated news just need a hug. Try to smile and be nice and open to others and other ideas other than your own. Kindness can go a long way in life."

58) Lake Visitor: "My friend puts the pesticide out on the weeds and I'm sure she's just going to keep doing it"

59) Additional Comment: "We can tell from the comments that some people were some real bullies in school. Didn't you'all learn from your primary school teacher: be nice, be civil, respect and do unto others as you'd have done to you."

61) Additional Comment: "This is a scam. These folks are providing false and misleading information. This is a company drumming up work for themselves. No transparency other than throwing Edwin Valberts name out there."

62) Additional Comment: "Is this the small group of people Susan F. Spoke about at the annual meeting? I am a board member and have had no one reach out to me about this."

65) Additional Comment: "I asked question #64 staring that I was a board member. Do you read? You advised me to reach out to the board!!!"

69) Additional Comment: "These comments are eye opening. Blessings to you for exposing peoples true colors."

70) Additional Comment: "This is for all of the people that are using this site for their own agendas and negativity. GET OVER YOUR SELF ! This site is for finding a solution of a weed problem and the Phillips Lake COMMUNITY !! They have counseling for people that can’t work well with others ."

Let’s keep the discussion going.