Lakes Region Conservation Corps
 

Just received this email from the Squam Lakes Association:

Following the $$
 

What does this mean in terms of "lost" revenue to LRCC? How much of that was re-distributed to other groups? Name some, please. I know and have supported LRCT. Never had any awareness of LRCC.

LRCT is a host site for LRCC. My understanding is they are paid through LRCC and do work for LRCT.

It's not lost revenue, it's lost labor. The government pays the salaries of the Americorps workers, providing nonprofits such as Squam Lakes Association and Lakes Region Conservation Trust with low cost labor to do the kinds of things noted by the OP. So with the cancellation of the program, that's 32,000 people out of work, and a lot manual labor for nonprofits that will not be done.

"32,000 jobs lost" piqued my curiosity. There's some difference in concepts here. It appears AmeriCorps gives money to several NH organizations such as Mt Washington Observatory, LRCC, LRCT, Squam Lakes Assoc., etc. for example. AmeriCorps is mostly staffed by 500 people in Washington DC and they rely on the local groups for local management. The "members" who do the work are not paid, although they get some living expenses. They get ~$500 a month, called a "Segal Education Award" when they complete either the 6 month or one year training program. It appears there were 1900 such trainees in NH in 2024. So yes, there's some valuable manpower here and some undefined grants to local organizations, but unpaid trainees are not 32,000 jobs lost. Nevertheless, some loss to our local programs. I'm sure they will work hard to make up the difference. The annual budget for AmeriCorps is about $1.5 billion.

Excellent. The labor pool does need more able bodies


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I wish you'd just say you don't like AmeriCorps. But let's not quibble on semantics. It's pretty straightforward--the "volunteers" or "trainees" were going to be paid "living expenses" and "awards" that are about the same low $ as similar jobs for young people. The local organizations were counting on that labor, and now they have no time or money to "make up the difference"

Plenty of opportunities. Just need to know where to look for them.

Some photos and info ....... http://www.lrct.org/our-work/lakes-r...ervation-corps ....... from the Lakes Region Conservation Trust.

The lakes region here in central New Hampshire is blessed with miles of mountain walking trails and many shoreline shallow waters good for paddling a kayak.

In this year 2025, the Town of Meredith is building ....... http://www.meredithnh.gov/293/Adapti...t-Leavitt-Park .... close to the Meredith-Center Harbor border on the northern end of Lake Winnipesaukee at Leavitt Beach.

I agree there are plenty of opportunities and with your implication that every organization can be more efficient. But having worked with several nonprofits, the basic situation is that on any given day the group has about 20 to-do items, and only enough money for 10 of them.

They were already doing everything they could to get more donations and volunteers. So when they lose a bunch of cheap labor, they do 8 or 9 things instead of 10. For great local groups, like the Squam guys and LRCT, that's really a bummer

Other land owners are using everything from timber operations, to carbon tax mitigation sales, to leasing their motorized trails.

Many LRCT lands already have some of this, but looking deeper means more revenue without really that much more volunteer efforts.

The State is doubling the Dam Ownership fee
 

Unfortunately the cancellation of funding isn't the only issue facing New Hampshire's natural resource's. The House budget as just sent forward includes a doubling of the fee carried by dam owners from $1,500 annually to $3,000. I am one of those dam owners and this is causing me to re-think the value of the pristine 53 acre pond my dam retains. Owning a dam is already a huge investment in both financial cost and the burdenship of responsibility.
The easy solution for me and many other dam owners would be to remove the spillway elevations and drain the retained waters. Jackson Pond would likely shrink from its current 53 acres of pristine fresh water to something around 15 acres surrounded by a muddy marsh. Many affected small lakes and ponds like this will disappear from the NH landscape forever, so this is no small issue.
Jackson Pond was dammed up in the 1890s and served for one hundred years as the Ashland Town water supply. My neighbor across the pond and myself bought the dam in 2018 to preserve it just as it is both for ourselves and the public to enjoy. The DES has inspected the dam twice since and so far there are no issues, But now, do to a legislative money grab the future of this dam must be reconsidered. As mentioned before we already singularly carry the burden to maintain this pristine waterway, but now find ourselves a target for budgetary reasons. Do you think this is fair? If not be sure to let your State Senator and the Govenor's office know ...before it is too late.
For some photos of Jackson Pond please check out the Lakes and Ponds gallery in this fantastic website.

The Proponents for less Government don't realize that many of the things they enjoy on a daily basis are funded by Government and are threatened by these blanket cutbacks. I'm all for Government cutbacks, but not with a chainsaw approach!
Wait until they start cutting our national forests, who is going to be left on the payroll to monitor this cutting?

Prefer not to pay taxes so others can enjoy a picnic on private property
Off topic though related, the silence from every NH environmental group regarding the development and destruction of the Laconia State School Property is saddening.
Paving 100 acres and adding 2000 housing units a short distance uphill from a state park and Winnisquam Lake. The runoff alone into the lake will be so harmful to the environment and wildlife.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I've never been to Jackson Pond, but this really seems like a bummer. Also an interesting puzzle. Please fill in some blanks for us--

Your and your neighbor have waterfront houses on the pond, and the dams are on your property?

Aside from the one neighbor you mention, are there other homes on the pond?

Have you tried to transfer ownership of the dams to a larger nonprofit that would not mind spending $3,000/year, or maybe that's not even possible?

Thanks

LOL, you're correct. It all depends on which side is telling the story, and who is the better story teller. TRUTH is somewhere in the middle.

FlyingScot,
There are no permanent homes on the pond, but my neighbor across the way has a small newly built cottage with a composting toilet and power and I have a 7' square Rubbermaid shed with a bunk and small off-grid solar system. Neither of us has running water. We also each have 16' docks on our opposite shorelines, but otherwise there are no other structures. Both of us have large acreage lots and a significant amount of shoreline, but the pond side lots are otherwise either landlocked or in permanent conservation and any future developement is highly unlikely.
The two of us alone have put up all of the the funds needed for the purchase of the dam and 12 acres that went alone with it, and the State fees and Town taxes. The dam lot is in current use so the Town taxes aren't much at all, but the State fee and burden of possible needed maintenance at some point is already considerable and a little scary). The doubling of the State fee will put the total cost in an area where maintaining the dam may become unreasonably expensive. Again, Jackson Pond is only one of many privately maintained dams that will be affected by the doubling of the State tax and in most cases losing these small bodies of water will not have a positive impact on the natural beauty the State of NH.
The Town of New Hampton has a right of way for the road over the dam, but doesn't contribute a cent toward the costs for the dam maintenance. One of the local conservation groups (I'll leave them unnamed) also has a 2 acre lot permanent easement on one of the Jackson Pond waterfront properties, but they haven't yet contributed a cent either. It is obvious that neither the Town, the State, nor any of the conservation groups have any interest in participating in the cost of owning and maintaining this dam
I've created small a small parking area on either side of the dam and the side where the Friends of JP sign is features an easy small boat carry-in for the occsional kayakers and fishermen that visit, so please do drive by and enjoy it sometime soon ...before the new and ill conceived doubling of the State Dam fee puts this, and so many other small ponds, now possibly in jeopardy. Hopefully either the Senate or the Governor will see the error and possible negative effects of the this new tax and kill the increase before the budget is passed. I've written to both offices about the issue, so we'll see...

We need housing for younger workers.

LDS article:
https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...58ee062b5.html

Alan

If you are getting paid, you are not a true volunteer, even if it is disguised as a stipend for "living expenses". Perhaps the real volunteers will continue to do the work. It sounds like the real loss of jobs might be the bureaucrats in Washington

We've been saying volunteers. AmeriCorps is very careful to use the word "members". That makes sense. They give out $1.5B a year with 500 employees. In NH, that involved half a dozen sub groups that do the same services every year. I think one person per state could handle that, and s/he doesn't need a lot of DC overhead. Better to appoint somebody in each state and ask the individual states to supply a local office at low/no cost to the Feds.

It's fine with me if you think the government should cut AmeriCorps--that's a reasonable policy debate. Also a reasonable debate on implementation--this would make way more sense if they were planning in advance.

But let's not be cute or silly just to stir the political pot. Volunteers help out for a few hours at a time, when they feel like it, on projects they choose. AmeriCorps, regardless of what you call their roles, works full time, much harder than almost any volunteer, on pretty much whatever they're assigned. Even 50 typical volunteers could not replace 5 or 6 AmeriCorps people.

Funding is the issue.

I remember back when residing over NHOHVA that the non-motorized portion of the NRTP funds hardly got used. So that could help on some funding - and yes, at times contractors were paid to do the work.

There has to be many programs that because the lump sum of money is not that large, they just don't bother to seek grants on.