Quote:
Originally Posted by winterh
This thread got me wondering how many current lakefront owners would be in favor of tougher regulations on what they could do with their property provided it was proven it would help water quality...Also, are the regulations tougher on Squam and do they have the same issues?
|
Regulations on Squam are tougher, and I don't think I have ever seen a cyanobacteria warning there. The history of Squam is quite instructive. From the Squam Lakes Association web page:
Quote:
At the turn of the century, Squam was quite different from the scene we enjoy today. The surrounding mountains were cleared by logging, sawdust several feet thick had settled in many of the coves, driftwood made navigation hazardous, and refuse including tires, mattresses and dead animals, had been dumped in the lakes.
In 1904, the Squam Lakes Improvement Association was formed by a group of concerned landowners. In 1905, the association was legally incorporated as a non-profit conservation organization and renamed Squam Lakes Association (SLA). Initial efforts of the SLA were focused on eliminating pollution from the lakes, maintenance of the water level, boat safety, and navigation. Through cooperative relationships with local and state governments and the dedication of four generations of people who loved Squam, the watershed has been uniquely conserved.
|
Lakefront property owners should support the Lake Winnipesaukee Association (winnipesaukee.org) and NH Lakes (nhlakes.org). We need to contact our legislators to express our urgent concern and support for stronger regulations, as well as tougher enforcement of the laws. Individually, we must become more educated about how our decisions impact the lake we love and change some of our behaviors. NH Lakes' "Lake Smart" program is a great place to start,
https://nhlakes.org/lakesmart/
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Meade