Repealing Shoreline Protection maybe?
 

Not much info here on this last sentence lifted from today's Dec 4 front page article, "Recession seen putting environmental protection at risk," in the LaDaSun on the problems lately of finding the money to pay for the NH Dept of Environmental Services due to the 30% decrease in building permits.

Many many bills gets filed and just a very small number get actually passed into law....with 400 different state reps, each rep is pretty much invisable to the electorate and no one pays any attention to a state rep...so anything can and does go in terms of bills being filed.....probably just some midnight rave by another right-wing wacko Republican.

"Representative Andrew Renzullo (R-Hudson), a Co-chair of the House Republican Alliance, has filed a bill to repeal the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act in its' entirety."

Yup, isn't it amazing the things one can find to read, written up by some Whacko Nut Job !

That LSR does exist. It has not officially become a bill yet, but it will, and it is not a joke... nor is it "just some midnight rave by another right-wing wacko Republican." There is not much to comment on in the LaDaSun article because until it becomes a bill there is no text. The LSR simply serves as a place holder stating the eventual bill's goal, which in this case is quite clearly stated.

shoreline protection act
 

While just the uttering of the words shore line protection act sounds like something admirable on the surface, the truth is that there are some major issues with this law as written with over stepping property owner rights, as well as over regulation, and over priced onerous fees to name a few. This law is ripe for reform and will most likely be repealed or reformed. Dont look at this as some evil republican wanting to ruin the environment, look at it as wanting to reasonably balance the needs of the property owner with that of the environment.

The law as is stands now seems complicated, but actually it leaves room for lots of differing scenarios to accommodate different development goals. In what concrete way does it over-regulate?

Not being all that familiar with the NH legislative process, have to wonder what's an LSR?

From General Court Website
 

Here's a definition:

An LSR is an acronym for Legislative Service Request. A Legislative Service Request is when a legislator makes a request for the drafting of a bill.

shoreland
 

Repeal is the correct approach for this. Rolling this back to where we were before this bill still leaves us with significant shoreland protection. The shoreland protection bill as written really implemented a form of statewide zoning and funding for DES. As always local control is best. Take a look at the enclosed link and see what a monstrosity feel good environmental laws turn into. I mean really do we need the powers of the state to implement a "pepperweed patrol"? Scroll through this extensive alphabetical index to see how out of control DES is.

http://des.nh.gov/sitemap/index.htm

"Rolling this back to where we were before this bill still leaves us with significant shoreland protection."

Which "bill"? Are you thinking of a roll back to pre 2008, pre 2002, pre 1994, or pre 1991?

i've said it before and i'll say it again...
 

my personal experience:

• the CSPA regulations are not complex if you take the time to actually read them
• the staff at the DES was very accomodating in meeting and working with me to explain the options and come to resolution
• I didn't pay any "excessive" fees to get the permit
• time from submission to approval was about 6 weeks and would have been quicker if I hadn't forgotten to include something

-PIG

It sounds like you think that prior to this bill, shore front development was only controlled locally? Are you familiar with what the shore front regulation was prior to the latest DES bill?

Exactly what I was thinking. While I think the latest version of the Shoreland Protection Act is a bit to much, I am not sure I want to role back to the pre 1991 rules and regulations. However I want to see the rules loosened back up and made more clear.....

Not what we need
 

I have had substantial personal interaction with the DES for both commercial and residential construction I have done on two waterfront parcels located in different towns on the lake.
My personal opinion is that while some of what they think they are attempting to accomplish is admirable the end result may not be.
Without going in to specifics (for obvious reasons) the plan they approved for one of my sites creates substantially more drainage directly into the lake than I would have put there. Other "feel good" requirements they insisted upon did nothing but increase the cost of the project. Many of the DES employees are simply misguided and on a power trip.
One arrogant DES employee called me on the phone and proceeded to yell at me for some violation I was not aware of and demand that I appear in Concord the following day for a hearing.
Simply put, this agency needs a substantial overhaul and redirection of efforts.
Thought for the day: If the environmentalists had just arrived a few thousand years earlier we could now be sharing our neighborhoods with dinosaurs!

I was in favor of Shoreland Protection in the beginning. However I don't think it's working.

All we have is more bureaucracy, more fees, more baloney. You fill out a bunch of forms and do what you would have done anyway. All the builders know how to work the system. Some just do whatever they want and mostly get away with it. And the rich ignore it and pay the fines.

What is wrong with allowing the local building inspector to enforce things. He is better positioned to know the situation and keeps things in line.

Is the Shoreland being better protected by all this red tape? I don't think so.

shoreland
 

As it happens I was considering the two 2007 bills which went into effect in July 2008. HB 383 added the language that the rules were developed from and HB 663 added the permitting and funding mechanism.

"269:5 Positions Established. The department of environmental services may hire up to 6 additional staff positions to implement RSA 483-B and to perform education and outreach. Authorized positions include, at a minimum, 2 environmentalist II and 2 environmental III positions for implementation of RSA 483-B, and one environmentalist II position for education and outreach. Funding for the positions and associated costs shall be drawn from the wetlands and shorelands review fund under RSA 482-A:3, III."

Personally I believe that the methodology of funding the regulators by their regulatory fees creates an incentive for more bureacracy and is bad legislative policy.What is your opinion?

I have to agree with the last three posts. We have recently been through the process a couple of times and I don't think it is easy or timely. We hired people to get us through it, I would never have tackled it on our own. I think the whole process took longer, costs more, and didn't change anything for the better than what we would have done.

How's the house coming P.I.G
 

Looks like your new house is coming along nicely. Seems to be a contractor that actually puts some manpower on the job. Missing those cams to check ice conditions to get out to Bear this winter. I too have found the new regs to be easy to manuver through and DES is more than helpful.

I don't agree with this statement at all. Most of the building inspectors in the towns that surround the lake do not address (nor do they want to) the landscaping elements that are necessary. The most they will look at is the temporary erosion fencing around the building site. And forget about the enforcement part, I just don't see that happening.

Why would the local inspectors take on this task when there is a state agency responsible for this enforcement. Turn reposnsiblity for these areas over to the local inspectors and give them an insentive to do the job. You will then have better and more responsive enforcement. And it will cost a lot less.

What incentive would that be?

Well, of course.

First: This behavior is typical of all bureaucrats at all times (cf "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance", 1776).

Second: Any government position titled "Environmentalist [I, II, III, XXLVI, whatever] is going to attract lunatics who are faithful believers in a pseudoscience. Their delusions are shared by lots of good-hearted folk, so they can mostly practice their false religion without too much pushback.

Combine 1 and 2, you produce a monster.

Repeal the whole thing.

Water quality IS our business
 

My experience with the NH DES has been different that described, especially the claim of "all". While I've run into one person in DES who caused me problems and unneeded cost, the rest of my encounters have been with intelligent people who care for the environment, yet are pragmatic with the rules. Terms such as pseudoscience and false religion make good hype for perpetuating Fox network's war on sanity, but are counterproductive in a state where the economy is largely based on ecology based tourism. Our lake is eutrophying, and while it is a natural process, increased runoff from poorly engineered development is speeding it up. When people are not able to be good stewards of the state's resources, the government "of the people" has to step in - and has.

I guess it's a good thing those position titles are: Shoreland Outreach Specialist, Shoreland Permitting Specialist, and Shoreland Compliance Specialist. Otherwise we might have accidentally hired a bunch of lunatics...

I agree. All my experiences have been positive, have they put me thru the hoops, yes - but all was for the protection of the Lake. The rules are not the issue, their ability to enforce them is. They need more staff. If we are interested in the health of the state's greatest resource, we should be talking about bolstering the DES not tearing it down.

yet another proposed piece of BS
yeah, that's a good idea, let's just completely ruin all of the bodies of water in this state!

The problem is the extremes.
 

You can have too little regulation, and end up with the "Dust Bowl' and the Great Depression.

http://factoidz.com/facts-about-the-dust-bowl/

http://factoidz.com/facts-of-the-great-depression/

You can have a measured amount of regulation,and end up with the National Park System.

http://factoidz.com/largest-national...united-states/

Some regulation is required and desired. The founders took the concept of "The Commons" from old English law. Commons belonged to everyone. (IE "Boston Commons" ) Winnipesaukee, belongs to all of us. We all have a stake in it's careful management.

The challenge is, where is the line between too much and too little regulation and/or management.

For me, I'd rather have a little "too much" regulation and healthy intelligent debate on limiting the regulations than get too far down the road of under regulation and find our beautiful lake destroyed

Just my Humble Opinion. :)

Hmmm.... IMHO, once a law or conviction is made, good luck in trying to get it repealed (or pardoned).

Err on the side of too little regulation and apply more if needed. We see what too much government can do, don't let it do the same to the Lakes Region.

I wasn't around at the time they did this act as I was out of the area that year. However, when I did return the first think I noticed was that many had cleared their lots as there were new tree cutting provisions and other had hastily built HUGE NEW HOMES THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE LOT OR AT LEAST MOST OF THE LOT!! When I purchased my small home it was with the understanding that it might one day be a larger home there. Who knows now? Think the reason for so man larger homes being built was the SPA or shoreline protection act.

I doubt it. There aren't too many property owners that panicked and spent a couple of million just to beat the change in the act, which was not very additionally restrictive.

Agreed, and most towns (at least around Sunapee) already had tree provisions prior to CSPA as well.


Mostly the problem is that most folks think that bigger is the only way to have a home that flows. I ask anyone that feels that way to read the series of books by Sarah Susanka, they all relate to the waste of space that is common in modern residential architecture. Its all about the hang up on square footage.

If you get a chance to meet her in person, it is a treat. She has some great ideas and is really easy to talk to.
http://www.notsobighouse.com/

I haven't had any dealings (yet) with DES but I do want to say that the helpful, informative and reasonable postings by Shore Things in this forum on all things related to the Act don't lead me to dread that possibility.