Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer
There is an increased understanding of the economic value of water quality in the Lakes Region. Lake Winnipesaukee Association recently published a study on that. While swimming, boating, fishing, vacation homes and more are attractions, people prefer to do it in clear water.
Many things degrade water quality. The overall trend is towards lake eutrophication, or aging. Aging can't be stopped but it can be sped up or slowed down. When a lake ages, its water quality declines, and vice-versa. Areas with lower water quality generally have lower economic activity. The question is how fast will any water body age to the point of economic downturn and where should the government add regulations. The State of NH owns most of the water bodies after all. It should have a say in how it is used.
The proposition in this legislation is that wakesurfing is a outlying contributor to lake aging and should be regulated.
Cruisers and commercial craft, even the marine patrol, leave large but infrequent wakes, especially in the sensitive coves. Winnipesaukee is still pristine in many areas, but noticeably aging in others. Winnipesaukee can handle wake boat traffic in the wide open areas, but some water bodies already see accelerated aging, likely due to watershed development. Many things impact water quality and many things are already regulated. In this case, there is a higher risk of water bodies having a algae crisis if a higher wake intensity is introduced. A 500 foot distance from shore requirement would restrict wakesurfing on smaller water bodies yet allow it on lakes that can support it, like Winnipesaukee.
Political parties sometimes agree on measures to protect the state's ecology and along with it the economic driver it provides. Hopefully this is one of those cases.
I've submitted my testimony via the web site referenced and encourage you to do it too. Deadline is tomorrow (2/9)
|
Keep in mind the bill is not directly trying to prevent wake surfing on smaller bodies. It’s only proposing increasing safer distant from 150 to 250 ft. Not 500 ft.
I agree 500 ft would be better and would rule out some smaller bays and lakes. And folks are arguing to extend it to 500 ft.
I don’t disagree wake surfing does probably contribute to aging. But it’s hard to prove and a weak argument. Lawns, chemicals on those lawns and run off from those lawns are probably the #1 reason. Even lawns further up the mountains around the lakes are aging it. Poor rules from decades ago around septic systems is probably #2. Stirring up the water is probably way down the list.
I think sticking with safety and erosion are more direct and immediate consequences that can be debated. Aging will be a LOT harder. We’ve had significant aging long before the wake surfing was even a thing.