Cyanobacteria Alert Issued for Blackey Cove (Moultonborough)

[Grant]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Willow Springs Lake looks to be about 1/2 mile long by a 1/4 mile wide (can’t find anything about depth) and cost 80k to treat. It is an interesting option but I don’t see NH ponying up the $$ necessary to treat Winni for phosphorus.
Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Agreed. Just sharing to show how it's done, since alum was mentioned as an option for Blackey Cove. Very expensive. But for a place like Willow Springs, which gets 100% of its revenue from paying divers, it's a worthwhile investment.

Another issue with Blackey would be that it's fed by Kanasatka, which has its own cyanobacteria issues. You'd think that the benefits of any treatment might be reversed by the inflow from Kanasatka. Just a hunch.

[tummyman]

I live on Blackey Cove and from my personal observations, by-in-large the recent cyanobacteria blooms we experience are from the dam outflow from Kanasatka that drains into Blackey Cove. Since the state owns the water, the state DES is actually contributing to the blooms that spread into Blackey Cove.

[John Mercier]

Since they mention fundraising... it seems the State is not going to take financial responsibility for the alum treatment.

DES can only due the Legislature has enacted.
The Legislature is the final responsibility on the issue.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Since they mention fundraising... it seems the State is not going to take financial responsibility for the alum treatment.

DES can only due the Legislature has enacted.
The Legislature is the final responsibility on the issue.

Don't point at the legislature as the problem, that is just wrong, because it is cyclical process... DES has to report that there are issues that the need legislative action to deal with.

People continue to want to blame figure heads.... but the reality is things are often more system level, then not.....

With that said, everyone that has access to and owns property around the lake needs to be willing to help with dealing with the issue that has been created. As a homeowner, the value of your property is directly linked to the value of the body of water you abut....

[tis]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Don't point at the legislature as the problem, that is just wrong, because it is cyclical process... DES has to report that there are issues that the need legislative action to deal with.

People continue to want to blame figure heads.... but the reality is things are often more system level, then not.....

With that said, everyone that has access to and owns property around the lake needs to be willing to help with dealing with the issue that has been created. As a homeowner, the value of your property is directly linked to the value of the body of water you abut....

That's true the value of our property depends on the lake, but we do pay an awful lot in taxes now. You think we should pay more?

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

That's true the value of our property depends on the lake, but we do pay an awful lot in taxes now. You think we should pay more?

What I think is that lake front property owners have a vested interest in the quality of the lake. And as a lake front property owner, I am well aware of how much taxes they pay. With that said, paying more in taxes is at all what I was referencing... although it could seem that way.....

Think of it as upkeep to your home and its value, you pay to keep your house painted and looking nice, to keep your grass green, trees trimmed etc. Whether you pay to have someone do it your you do it yourself there is cost associated with these things. So why does it seem so illogical that you might need to pay for the up keep to a body of water that you have rights to based on your properties location. Think of it as an association.

In this case lets call it the Lake Kanasatka association... each lake front home owner owns rights to a certain percentage of the lake, and the state owns the rest.... Now everyone can point fingers and blame others.... But If I want my home to be worth the most, it would make sense to work with the state to find a solution..... It may require money from the state, It could even require some money from individual homeowners... OR it could be that the homeowners and state, find grounds that will allow for federal funding and grants, and it ends up costing the state and the homeowners nothing.....

What I am trying to preach unsuccessfully it would seem is that, the solution doesn't solely lie on the shoulders of the town or the state, but on all the stake holders collectively.... And because Lake Kanasatka flows into Lake Winnipesaukee, which flows into Lake Oppeche, Lake Winnisquam, and down the Winnipesaukee river.... we can expanded the affected are out to all those home owners have something at stake too......

People loose sight of the fact that if the water quality of the Lakes Region deteriorates, we all have a lot to loose...

[Descant]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

... OR it could be that the homeowners and state, find grounds that will allow for federal funding and grants, and it ends up costing the state and the homeowners nothing.....

HaHaHa. I love it when people think it costs nothing if the feds pay for it. LMAO.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

The statewide plan to address cyanobacteria is now available and has been posted on the NHDES website. In 2022, legislation was enacted to require the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) to develop a plan that would prevent the increase of and help control cyanobacteria blooms in water bodies throughout the state. Recognizing that cyanobacteria blooms cannot be eliminated, the State included strategies to educate, monitor, and evaluate the potential causes of these blooms. This plan marks an important step for the state in outlining specific strategies and actions to address the threat of harmful algal blooms to our freshwater resources.

Four key strategies were identified as necessary to meet the State's goals to prevent the increase of and eventual control of cyanobacteria blooms in NH's waterbodies. The following is excerpted from the plan:

Develop policies and practices to prevent nutrient inputs. Significant efforts must be made to reduce nutrient inputs into the state's surface waters. Control of nutrient loading to surface waters, in particular phosphorus, is best accomplished through state and local policy implementation, stormwater control and watershed and lake management.

Advance outreach and education efforts for individual assessment and action. Respondents to a public outreach survey identified increasing education and training tools as important to making informed decisions about the use of the state’s surface waters with respect to cyanobacteria bloom presence. Such efforts are important to increase general awareness of the public and specific segments of the workforce who have direct contact with the state’s surface waters for recreation and as a drinking water source.

Enhance monitoring to track frequency, location and duration. Enhancement of cyanobacteria monitoring is needed to track blooms and clearly communicate current conditions to the public. Cyanobacteria blooms vary widely in their duration, severity and distribution.

Establish policies and procedures specific to surface waters used for public drinking water supplies. There are over 560,000 service points in New Hampshire that provide water to the public that originates from surface waters. To date NHDES is aware of nine surface water sources where cyanobacteria blooms have occurred.

Each strategy has a list of priority actions associated with it, which can be found in Appendix C. Appendix B lists ideas and suggestions shared by the Cyanobacteria Advisory Committee, and Appendix D. lists a summary of supplemental actions.

It is worth taking the time to review the plan, its strategies, priorities, and recommended actions. Cyanobacteria blooms are not going away in the near future, and as noted in the Executive Summary, 'the efforts identified in the plan require policy changes, financial investments, partnerships, research, and education.'

LWA was pleased to participate in the Cyanobacteria Advisory Committee, and will continue in our efforts to reduce nutrient loading to the surface waters in the Winnipesaukee watershed, as well as implementing other strategies identified in the plan. Read the Plan Here.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Don't point at the legislature as the problem, that is just wrong, because it is cyclical process... DES has to report that there are issues that the need legislative action to deal with.

People continue to want to blame figure heads.... but the reality is things are often more system level, then not.....

With that said, everyone that has access to and owns property around the lake needs to be willing to help with dealing with the issue that has been created. As a homeowner, the value of your property is directly linked to the value of the body of water you abut....

I think I am justified in doing so...

From NHPR:

"Cyanobacteria

The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would direct the state’s Department of Environmental Services to make a plan to prevent the growth of harmful algae called cyanobacteria in New Hampshire waters.

Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, can multiply quickly in water that is warm, slow-moving, and rich in nutrients from fertilizer or sewage. The toxic algae can have harmful health effects for humans, causing rashes and respiratory and gastrointestinal issues. Dogs and other animals can suffer severe illness and death from cyanobacteria.

The first reports of cyanobacteria in New Hampshire happened in the 1960s, and state regulators began a new program to respond to public concerns about the increasing prevalence of cyanobacterial blooms in 2020.

New Hampshire DES asks Granite Staters to call with reports of cyanobacteria at 603-848-8094."

It was passed from DES to the Legislature in 2020. This is as far as the Legislature would go. HB276 -FN-A was retained in committee.
DES can not spend what is not funded; nor can they make any mitigation laws without legislative approval.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think I am justified in doing so...

From NHPR:

"Cyanobacteria

The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that would direct the state’s Department of Environmental Services to make a plan to prevent the growth of harmful algae called cyanobacteria in New Hampshire waters.

Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, can multiply quickly in water that is warm, slow-moving, and rich in nutrients from fertilizer or sewage. The toxic algae can have harmful health effects for humans, causing rashes and respiratory and gastrointestinal issues. Dogs and other animals can suffer severe illness and death from cyanobacteria.

The first reports of cyanobacteria in New Hampshire happened in the 1960s, and state regulators began a new program to respond to public concerns about the increasing prevalence of cyanobacterial blooms in 2020.

New Hampshire DES asks Granite Staters to call with reports of cyanobacteria at 603-848-8094."

It was passed from DES to the Legislature in 2020. This is as far as the Legislature would go. HB276 -FN-A was retained in committee.
DES can not spend what is not funded; nor can they make any mitigation laws without legislative approval.

So I don't disagree in total with you pointing the blame at the legislature. But as mentioned the process is cyclical.... With out knowing anything about HB276-FN-A in 2020 its hard to understand the actions, and why that bill was retained in committee... But when that happens DES, should be working to get what they need, and trying to get the next steps to happen.

I have no problem blaming DES as much as the legislature.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

So I don't disagree in total with you pointing the blame at the legislature. But as mentioned the process is cyclical.... With out knowing anything about HB276-FN-A in 2020 its hard to understand the actions, and why that bill was retained in committee... But when that happens DES, should be working to get what they need, and trying to get the next steps to happen.

I have no problem blaming DES as much as the legislature.

DES can only request... which they have for decades... the Legislature is the one that denies; and this was a pretty tame bill.

It is the restrictions that will need to occur to change direction that will be the hardest legislative pills to swallow.

[root1]

Everyone seems to agree that the condition of our lakes are getting worse .... at an ever increasing rate.
Does anyone wish to comment about how they view the lakes are improving with age? Anyone? Bueller?

Without being too Draconian; and as distasteful as encouraging more state control/interference would be, I would happily like to see a line item on my RE tax bill to support a program like this:

The state (DES) can go through their records and force property owners (within 250' of the lake AND having no record of an approved septic system) to update/replace their system within five years.
The state could provide low interest loans (with the property as secured collateral) for those who cannot afford the update/replacement.
After eight years, 'non-compliants' will have a lien placed on their property.
Records of 'pump-out' must be submitted to the state.

If something isn't done soon, we are going to regret having ever purchased our waterfront homes. It might take 5 years ...... it might take 50 years ..... might take 100; any way you clock it, the lake is dying. And its OUR responsibility to slow it's demise. I encourage everyone to write their state rep, demanding corrective action, before it's too late.

Just my two cents worth .......

[tummyman]

And while you think it is only the lakefront people who need to have compliant systems....I totally agree but feel it should be ALL property owners, not jsut lakefront....what is your plan for the numerous boaters who I see every weekend with lots of people and kids stop to allow people to get in the water to use the cove as a bathroom? Or the boaters who anchor all day and perform the same??? These folks are impacting things as well, and not in a favorable way. Oh, and as mentioned before, what about the geese?

[longislander]

NH Lakes over 10 acres belong to the state

https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files...6-20230125.pdf

https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB276/2023

https://kanasatka.org/cyanobacteria/

https://www.epa.gov/water-research/c...t-network-cyan

https://www.cdc.gov/habs/pdf/cyanobacteria_faq.pdf

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_microcystin/

https://nhlakes.org/wp-content/uploa...ria-Blooms.pdf

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/bri...water-quality/

https://indepthnh.org/2023/06/13/cya...-1m-in-budget/

https://www.des.nh.gov/land/septic-systems

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...HTOC-L-487.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...487/487-17.htm

[longislander]

Last Action
Nov 14, 2023, House: Executive Session: 11/14/2023 10:00 am LOB 210-211 HC 42


https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...&q=billVersion

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

And while you think it is only the lakefront people who need to have compliant systems....I totally agree but feel it should be ALL property owners, not jsut lakefront....what is your plan for the numerous boaters who I see every weekend with lots of people and kids stop to allow people to get in the water to use the cove as a bathroom? Or the boaters who anchor all day and perform the same??? These folks are impacting things as well, and not in a favorable way. Oh, and as mentioned before, what about the geese?

Well said! Thank you!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by root1

Everyone seems to agree that the condition of our lakes are getting worse .... at an ever increasing rate.
Does anyone wish to comment about how they view the lakes are improving with age? Anyone? Bueller? Without being too Draconian; and as distasteful as encouraging more state control/interference would be, I would happily like to see a line item on my RE tax bill to support a program like this: The state (DES) can go through their records and force property owners (within 250' of the lake AND having no record of an approved septic system) to update/replace their system within five years.
The state could provide low interest loans (with the property as secured collateral) for those who cannot afford the update/replacement. After eight years, 'non-compliants' will have a lien placed on their property. Records of 'pump-out' must be submitted to the state.

If something isn't done soon, we are going to regret having ever purchased our waterfront homes. It might take 5 years ...... it might take 50 yea rs ..... might take 100; any way you clock it, the lake is dying. And its OUR responsibility to slow it's demise. I encourage everyone to write their state rep, demanding corrective action, before it's too late. Just my two cents worth .......

Why not add septic systems to the usual inspections accomplished on every sale of real estate? Roof, termite, survey, structural defects, building code violations—among others--chimney, furnace.

'Seems like NH Realty groups would advance such mandatory inspections to reduce lakes' toxicity.

ETA:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=29209

The above new thread lists this:

"7. Consider updating RSA 485-A:39 to require replacement of septic systems determined to be in failure at the time of sale of property. Advisory Committee Recommendation.  "

Page 84, (Supplemental Actions)

[Descant]

ApS, I don't think we need to add more RSA requirements for things that should be part of a buyer's due diligence. Many of them come up in other ways or aren't part of the buyers plan if there will be a bulldozer or a major addition. Most buyers hire a home inspector and banks and/or insurance companies have their own requirements. My last two deals were cash buyers who had not desire to spend $500 for a home inspection because the negotiated price allowed for some unknowns. Condition of roof and furnace are obvious to an observer without great skill or training. A septic system on an unused camp may pass in the spring and fail by August when the new owner brings in three generations of his family to enjoy the new place.

[John Mercier]

NH doesn't have any inspection requirement at the time of sale/transfer.

Your mortgage company may have one, and your insurance company may have one... but the state doesn't.

Also, many properties do not go to sale or transfer for decades, if ever.

But I would guess a lot more human waste enters the waters directly rather than private septic system failures.

[DickR]

NH does require a septic assessment prior to sale of any property on a water body covered by the shoreline protection laws. Here is a link: https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files...-01/ssb-10.pdf

[John Mercier]

Didn't know that...
But it doesn't seem to have stopped the problem.

So what step do you go to next? Periodic? Over what period of time? At what cost? And how does a legislator handle the push back from landowners questioned the number of boaters - mostly not waterfront owners paying higher taxes - going directly into the water?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Didn't know that...
But it doesn't seem to have stopped the problem.

So what step do you go to next? Periodic? Over what period of time? At what cost? And how does a legislator handle the push back from landowners questioned the number of boaters - mostly not waterfront owners paying higher taxes - going directly into the water?

Any boat that has a head is supposed to be inspected and have an inspection sticker on it. Marinas are not supposed to launch boats that are not properly equipped. So, all grey water and black water goes into a holding tank to be pumped into an approved system. Free at most gas docks/marinas. That works OK for boats with a cuddy cabin and a head. As we get more and more bow riders and pontoons, it appears these don't have an onboard head and/or holding tank.
We hear a lot of suspicion and accusations about "improper discharge" at the sand bars, but I've never heard of anybody actually testing the water at a sandbar. What do the 'tooners do? I've heard that in other states there are barges that travel the sandbars with pump out and porta-pottis that travel around to provide "relief".
Is this really a problem, or do we just think it is because we don't know? This doesn't seem to bother the folks who go to the sandbars.

[John Mercier]

All those boats floating at the sandbar for hours do not have a ''head''. The occupants simply slip into the water and do their ''thing''.
You don't think they are holding it for hours on end?

Also Bayside Cemetery has a problem with ''trespassers''... they aren't there visiting... they are making a ''deposit'' right beside the lake.

Kayakers and canoeist sometimes do the same thing.

If the Legislature adds a large cost to waterfront owners... and we need to think about all the brooks, streams, and rivers in the watershed... they are going to point out correctly that issue. And to my way of thinking... the Legislature has nothing that they can do about it.

[ITD]

I've been through two of the septic assessment, they are quite thorough. I looked at a couple properties that had tight box septics (no discharge, need to be pumped) when we were buying, they couldn't pass the inspection, were small properties that could support a new system. Honestly I thought the rule applied to all NH properties, that it doesn't is a little shocking, it should be required for all properties. If you are looking for a smoking gun for this problem, malfunctioning or inadequately designed systems on watersheds and beyond are a big problem.

[John Mercier]

If they are urinating and defecating directly into the water, or onto the nearby shore, how is fixing septic systems going to make any difference?

The 2013 fertilizer law helped.
But a mixture of misapplication (not following directions), over application (using too much for the actual square footage), and not going for a phosporus-free (like Bonide) for existing lawn applications results in a lot of it just ending up in the run-off.

The application is virtually worthless on sloped terrain... and no one watches the forecasts for correct application... because we seldom have the correct conditions for usage in our area.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If they are urinating and defecating directly into the water, or onto the nearby shore, how is fixing septic systems going to make any difference?

IF?????? We see it all the time.

[barefootbay]

At the risk of repeating myself the problem is too much
money , too many people !

[John Mercier]

Well, those people will more than likely fork it out to keep the blooms out of their area.

[Descant]

I thought we might have comments from 'headless" boaters as to how they deal with these issues when they spend the day at the bar. Posting "I don't go there" isn't informative to any solution, any more than claiming that "everybody does it."
I have to guess that the headless folks don't post in this discussion because they do exactly what they're accused of. But I never hear of anybody being sick after swimming at a sandbar all day.

If we test water at public beaches and pools routinely, should DES or HHS be testing at the sandbars? LWA takes samples all around. Perhaps they would test for the general health of the lake in these congested areas?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Descant

Any boat that has a head is supposed to be inspected and have an inspection sticker on it. Marinas are not supposed to launch boats that are not properly equipped. So, all grey water and black water goes into a holding tank to be pumped into an approved system. Free at most gas docks/marinas. That works OK for boats with a cuddy cabin and a head. As we get more and more bow riders and pontoons, it appears these don't have an onboard head and/or holding tank.
We hear a lot of suspicion and accusations about "improper discharge" at the sand bars, but I've never heard of anybody actually testing the water at a sandbar. What do the 'tooners do? I've heard that in other states there are barges that travel the sandbars with pump out and porta-pottis that travel around to provide "relief".
Is this really a problem, or do we just think it is because we don't know? This doesn't seem to bother the folks who go to the sandbars.

This is why I avoid sandbars! Just the thought of swimming in all that urine grosses me out. And when you get to be my age you have to pee every 1/2 hour.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by DickR

NH does require a septic assessment prior to sale of any property on a water body covered by the shoreline protection laws. Here is a link: https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files...-01/ssb-10.pdf

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the site assessment form in the link, it shows that an evaluation of the land is required, and a statement that the land has a septic system; but it does not require that the system itself be inspected and confirmed to be in good working order.

[John Mercier]

It does state since 1993 to require on on-site inspection. Not sure to the level of quality that would be.

But it also doesn't go to the State, just the buyer as part of the P&S agreement.