(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

By State Senator Pat Jehlen

Many people wrote and called in opposition to Governor Baker’s poorly-thought-out solution to the tragic epidemic of drowning deaths this summer.   These terrible losses should make us look urgently for solutions, but not every idea is a good one.

His plan, particularly increasing fines for swimming in unauthorized areas, is not a good one. It is likely to have bad results and unlikely to save lives.  As far as I can tell, it is not based on looking at the actual causes of these incidents.

The governor should first make sure that his administration carries out existing programs, like providing enough lifeguards.  It is really good that DCR increased pay for lifeguardsin order to recruit more.  (Innovative idea of increasing supply by paying people more!  Maybe other employers who can’t find staff will follow suit!)   Making lifeguard training free or more affordable is another immediate step.

DCR has been underfunded for years; more funds could hire more lifeguards, pay them better, and provide more opportunities.  The graph to the left is from MassBudget; it shows parks and recreation funding, adjusted for inflation, since fiscal year 2001.

Increased fines are unlikely to help.People know they are unlikely to get caught, so it won’t be a deterrent.  If the fines are enforced, they will – like all large fines – mostly hurt low-income people, without improving safety.

Every child should get swimming lessons.  The Globe reported that almost 80% of low-income children don’t know how to swim.  Somerville provides free lessons during school time to all elementary students.  I’d like to hear if other districts do this.

I have seen many other good suggestions, including those in this Globe op ed by Marcela Garcia.

She suggests hiring lifeguards at the most popular unguarded sites.  One person said then the state would have to charge a fee to pay for it, but protecting public safety is a core government function, and could be paid from tax revenue.  Governor Baker clearly thinks we have too much revenue, so he’s proposed a 2-month sales tax holiday which would cost $900 million.  Perhaps he could spend a little of that.

Garcia’s comparison to safe injection sites is a good one. Let’s consider reducing harm, by putting life-saving tools, like ring buoys, at popular swimming places.  One of the people writing to me suggested that the state is trying to avoid legal liability by simply banning swimming.  Perhaps there are solutions to that.

The comparison to safe injection sites is relevant in another way.  If people can’t swim long distances at Walden Pond and other sites with other people around and lifeguards nearby (with rowboats or paddleboards, and with recommended or even available swim buoys), they will likely go to less safe places to swim. 

I have received many emails and calls about the Walden Pond situation, where DCR had previously worked with the many people who enjoy open water swimming.  I have left messages with Commissioner Montgomery’s office and his legislative liaison, expressing concern that the ban on open water swimming at Walden will drive determined swimmers to less safe places.  

I urge everyone to read the Globe’s article with advice to Good Samaritans.  It also makes me think making life-saving equipment at unguarded beaches and after guarded hours would help.

And people should keep close watch on children in private pools,where many drownings sadly occur.  You may want to download and/or share this Red Cross app.