First Cyanobacteria Warnings of 2024 Issued for Lake Winnipesaukee

[welch100]

Originally Posted by camp guy

This should be a loud and clear wake-up call to the governments around the Lake, and the regulatory officials in Concord. The Lake is the engine that drives the economy in central NH, just like the mountains are what drive the economy in the north country.

We all need to contact our legislators NOW!

[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. Just as an example, would you be opposed to rules which prohibit lawns within 50ft or even made people get rid of lawns they have now in favor of natural woodland buffers? How far would you be willing to go to ensure the lake remains as is or hopefully improves? I have a small lawn but if required to remove it and plant blueberry bushes to save the lake then I would start digging it up today. This is coming from someone who is as anti govt regulation and libertarian as they come but when it comes to the lake I seem to have a hard time with that philosophy. Also, are the regulations tougher on Squam and do they have the same issues?

[Biggd]

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. Just as an example, would you be opposed to rules which prohibit lawns within 50ft or even made people get rid of lawns they have now in favor of natural woodland buffers? How far would you be willing to go to ensure the lake remains as is or hopefully improves? I have a small lawn but if required to remove it and plant blueberry bushes to save the lake then I would start digging it up today. This is coming from someone who is as anti govt regulation and libertarian as they come but when it comes to the lake I seem to have a hard time with that philosophy. Also, are the regulations tougher on Squam and do they have the same issues?

Squam is a whole different animal.
Unfortunately, we can't turn back time and turn Winni into Squam.
That train has left the station!

[Descant]

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. Just as an example, would you be opposed to rules which prohibit lawns within 50ft or even made people get rid of lawns they have now in favor of natural woodland buffers? How far would you be willing to go to ensure the lake remains as is or hopefully improves? I have a small lawn but if required to remove it and plant blueberry bushes to save the lake then I would start digging it up today. This is coming from someone who is as anti govt regulation and libertarian as they come but when it comes to the lake I seem to have a hard time with that philosophy. Also, are the regulations tougher on Squam and do they have the same issues?

Why would you start planting blueberries only if required? You should be out there with your shovel now, planting according to NH DES guidelines.

[winterh]

Originally Posted by Descant

Why would you start planting blueberries only if required? You should be out there with your shovel now, planting according to NH DES guidelines.

I have done some and should do more but my little 1/4 acre lot will not change things. Every parcel on the lake probably would help. I am not saying it should be required. Just wondering how people would feel if it was. Do you think it would make a difference? Would you be willing to do it if it would?

[ITD]

Lawns on Winnipesaukee have been around fora long, long time. What do you suppose has changed in the last 10 to 15 years that might be contributing to this issue?

[tis]

Originally Posted by ITD

Lawns on Winnipesaukee have been around fora long, long time. What do you suppose has changed in the last 10 to 15 years that might be contributing to this issue?

Great question. And what about when it was almost all fields and cows?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by ITD

Lawns on Winnipesaukee have been around fora long, long time. What do you suppose has changed in the last 10 to 15 years that might be contributing to this issue?

Not the kind of lawns you see today. When I was a kid, no one fertilized their lawns, they were just natural grass and weeds. No one had landscapers, everyone cut their own grass. No one had underground sprinkler systems, we dragged out the hose and sprinkler and ran through it while it was on the front lawn. The back yard never saw water unless it rained!
But nice lawns are only one of many contributors to the deterioration of the lake.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ITD

Lawns on Winnipesaukee have been around fora long, long time. What do you suppose has changed in the last 10 to 15 years that might be contributing to this issue?

More development... and definitely stronger downpours.
But the phosphorous builds up... so it was happening all along and has finally gotten to the point it is.

[Susie Cougar]

Are the original warnings still in effect?

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

Are the original warnings still in effect?

Great question. I was thinking the same thing when I drove past 19 Mile Bay Beach and didn’t see any warnings posted and no one in the water. Does state require hazard warning postings when the get readings above the limits?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[barefootbay]

Start trapping and removing geese . They are a major contributor to phosphorus pollution. The have become an invasive species !

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by barefootbay

Start trapping and removing geese . They are a major contributor to phosphorus pollution. The have become an invasive species !

I don’t think that legal unless you remove them with a shotgun during hunting season.

[Lake Fan]

Originally Posted by SAB1

I don’t think that legal unless you remove them with a shotgun during hunting season.

First rule of removing geese: Don't talk about removing geese.

[John Mercier]

Well, the phosphorous in the lake is going to be in the lake for a very long time... and new phosphorous is going to enter the lake.

Those are just facts.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by ITD

Lawns on Winnipesaukee have been around for a long, long time. What do you suppose has changed in the last 10 to 15 years that might be contributing to this issue?

1. More dense development. Years ago, only shorefront was developed. Now, there is full development three and more levels back. We have a better knowledge of the effects of storm water runoff, but the over development has already been done. The Winnipesaukee River sewer program (1970's) made a big step forward, but it mostly covers the western side of the lake. Similar projects would help smaller lakes, and the east side, but Fed $$ is gone.

2. Contamination and eutrophication are slow and cumulative, followed by more and better testing. So things were happening some decades ago, but we just didn't have the same awareness.

3. Are the geese a part of the problem? Not many geese around 10-15 years ago.

[ITD]

What about higher lake levels, especially over the last few years and bigger wakes?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Descant

1. More dense development. Years ago, only shorefront was developed. Now, there is full development three and more levels back. We have a better knowledge of the effects of storm water runoff, but the over development has already been done. The Winnipesaukee River sewer program (1970's) made a big step forward, but it mostly covers the western side of the lake. Similar projects would help smaller lakes, and the east side, but Fed $$ is gone.

2. Contamination and eutrophication are slow and cumulative, followed by more and better testing. So things were happening some decades ago, but we just didn't have the same awareness.

3. Are the geese a part of the problem? Not many geese around 10-15 years ago.

Every season, I hear chainsaws and chippers behind the front row of shorefront development but can't see them. The latest chipper was working real hard on some seriously large trees.

I have a 2001 document that says this lot (my neighbor's) shouldn't be built on. There's a cluster of Maples on that lot that have exposed roots like Miami Banyan Trees! The two lawyers arranged to share their neighbor's septic leach field and, after moving in, converted a garage to a bedroom. (!)

When gentle breezes come from the west, some days the air is distinctly aromatic. The Health Department has twice found no violations so I'm wondering if today's standard NH leach field designs (copied from Massachusetts' designs) are outdated.

A friend's house in Winter Harbor's steep Port Wedeln regularly suffered leach field exposures--mostly flooding from a neighbor's lot uphill. His place was sold recently, but unsure at this date if the rain-flooding issue was completely addressed.

This site says a leach field that is older than 50 years should be replaced:

Drain Field Age
While a properly maintained drain field is designed to last up to 50 years, it’s not likely that it will last much longer than that. If you’re experiencing symptoms of drain field failure and you know that your drain field is getting up there in age, it might be wise to begin to budget for a drain field replacement.

https://www.angi.com/articles/what-is-drain-field.htm

[JayR]

In our little corner, there is a patch of poison ivy mixing with the grass that has been slowly advancing over the years. But, we have refrained from spraying it and will continue to protect the lake. We have some grass but do not use any chemicals on it...some years it is green, some years it is brown. If the science shows that this problem will go away if all the grass goes away, then ... the grass must go away!! But I know the issues are multifaceted and the answers won't be easy. (I also know compliance will be a bitch because of the entitled attitude of some landowners, harrumph...)

But I sure hope we work together on this, the future may depend on it.

[welch100]

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:

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

[FlyingScot]

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. Just as an example, would you be opposed to rules which prohibit lawns within 50ft or even made people get rid of lawns they have now in favor of natural woodland buffers? How far would you be willing to go to ensure the lake remains as is or hopefully improves? I have a small lawn but if required to remove it and plant blueberry bushes to save the lake then I would start digging it up today. This is coming from someone who is as anti govt regulation and libertarian as they come but when it comes to the lake I seem to have a hard time with that philosophy. Also, are the regulations tougher on Squam and do they have the same issues?

I am a current lakefront owner with a shorefront and yard that meet all the recommended criteria (as others have noted, you can get these guidelines from Lake Winnipesaukee Association).

Short of moving my house, haha, I would support anything the state asked if there was a new rule proposed to protect the lake. The thing to consider with these rules is that like many things, you may not want to do them yourself, but you're grateful to live in a place where everybody else is doing them.

We really better do something, or we'll lose the lake we love

[winterh]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

you may not want to do them yourself, but you're grateful to live in a place where everybody else is doing them.

Thats a great way to frame it!

[tis]

Everything used to be fields. This is Forest Road.

[tis]

This is the end of Tuftonboro Neck.

[luckypete]

Originally Posted by tis

Attachment 18560

Everything used to be fields. This is Forest Road.

Hey Tis, thanks for the photo. Any idea on what year this was taken?
Thanks in advance,
LP

[tis]

Originally Posted by luckypete

Hey Tis, thanks for the photo. Any idea on what year this was taken?
Thanks in advance,
LP

I don't know the date of these photos but when I was young you could still see the lake, it was all fields. My mother told me the cows walked right down to the lake for a drink and there must have been lots of cows back in the day. Lots are complaining about the grass but there was so much more grass then.

[John Mercier]

Pasture. Pasture is different than lawns.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't know the date of these photos but when I was young you could still see the lake, it was all fields. My mother told me the cows walked right down to the lake for a drink and there must have been lots of cows back in the day. Lots are complaining about the grass but there was so much more grass then.

Hi tis!

As an fyi...during the late 1800's over 70% of all land in NH south of the white mountains had been deforested for logging and agricultural purposes. Almost all the islands on Winnipesaukee had been cleared of trees at one time or another for the same reason. Heck, Welch Island at one time was completely cleared and was a pasture for sheep! Currently NH is 83% forested...

Just food for thought...

Dan

[Susie Cougar]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hi tis!

As an fyi...during the late 1800's over 70% of all land in NH south of the white mountains had been deforested for logging and agricultural purposes. Almost all the islands on Winnipesaukee had been cleared of trees at one time or another for the same reason. Heck, Welch Island at one time was completely cleared and was a pasture for sheep! Currently NH is 83% forested...

Just food for thought...

Dan

Back then, the lake was so vast and never ending that people never saw the real value. You could buy an acre of land for $1 and the value was being able to cut down the trees. $1 an acre! I heard these stories back in the 1970s by an old man in his late 90s.

[John Mercier]

They saw the value of the time.
Powerboating didn't exist... so the lake didn't draw a lot of lakefront homes.
The land near the lake had a year-round water source, so the pasture was greener. Milking cows were the prime economic engine, and sheep would be placed in areas that the soils were less advantageous to tall pasture grass.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

Back then, the lake was so vast and never ending that people never saw the real value. You could buy an acre of land for $1 and the value was being able to cut down the trees. $1 an acre! I heard these stories back in the 1970s by an old man in his late 90s.

I remember my mother telling me that her great grandmother thought of the lake as nothing more than a watering hole for the cows. She said they called it the pond.

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hi tis!

As an fyi...during the late 1800's over 70% of all land in NH south of the white mountains had been deforested for logging and agricultural purposes. Almost all the islands on Winnipesaukee had been cleared of trees at one time or another for the same reason. Heck, Welch Island at one time was completely cleared and was a pasture for sheep! Currently NH is 83% forested...

Just food for thought...

Dan

Exactly as the pictures show. It's amazing isn't it? So if the cows fertilized the fields why didn't it run into the lake and cause cyanobacteria? Or did it?

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

Exactly as the pictures show. It's amazing isn't it? So if the cows fertilized the fields why didn't it run into the lake and cause cyanobacteria? Or did it?

It most likely did run into the lake and increase nutrients, promoting stuff like cyanobacteria. But it did not cause cyanobacteria blooms like we have today because the total volume of nutrient flow into the lake was far, far less. Also, as John pointed out, nutrients can build up over years.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by tis

Exactly as the pictures show. It's amazing isn't it? So if the cows fertilized the fields why didn't it run into the lake and cause cyanobacteria? Or did it?

I'm sure there were issues back then tis, but no one was testing water back then either...

I know no one believes this or wants to believe it BUT the lake was a LOT more polluted back in the 50's 60's and 70's than it is now...Probably a good thing they didn't test the water back then!

We have come a long way with cleaning things up but still more needs to be done.

Dan

[SAB1]

It's all related to use. Just to many dwellings and people now. Lake is stressed. Kinda like you can only get so much in the septic tank before an issue arises. I know bad analogy. But IMO I place most of blame on the State. Poor regulation and enforcement on a variety of fronts.

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

I'm sure there were issues back then tis, but no one was testing water back then either...

I know no one believes this or wants to believe it BUT the lake was a LOT more polluted back in the 50's 60's and 70's than it is now...Probably a good thing they didn't test the water back then!

We have come a long way with cleaning things up but still more needs to be done.

Dan

That's what I am thinking, that we didn't have the testing we have today. I believe you, we were told not to drink the water when we were kids. We have so many keyboard experts, I am tired of reading the same thing over and over. They are so sure it is cause by fertilizer or septic. I am sure there are many more reasons.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by tis

That's what I am thinking, that we didn't have the testing we have today. I believe you, we were told not to drink the water when we were kids. We have so many keyboard experts, I am tired of reading the same thing over and over. They are so sure it is cause by fertilizer or septic. I am sure there are many more reasons.

My personal belief is more phosphorus is introduced into the lake by homes that are not directly on the lake. Storm drains that dump untreated water from all the surrounding roads has to be a major issue.

Also, I live on route 11 and that entire stretch of road from Laconia to Alton Bay including Scenic Drive which runs parallel to route 11 and is directly on the water, is so heavily treated with salt and other various ice melting chemicals that I won’t even walk my dog down that road in the winter for fear of what it may do to her feet! That simply can’t be good for all that to wash directly into the lake!

Dan

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

My personal belief is more phosphorus is introduced into the lake by homes that are not directly on the lake. Storm drains that dump untreated water from all the surrounding roads has to be a major issue.

Also, I live on route 11 and that entire stretch of road from Laconia to Alton Bay including Scenic Drive which runs parallel to route 11 and is directly on the water, is so heavily treated with salt and other various ice melting chemicals that I won’t even walk my dog down that road in the winter for fear of what it may do to her feet! That simply can’t be good for all that to wash directly into the lake!

Dan

Exactly. I know Port Wedeln has a problem because the taxpayers were asked to spend something like $400, 000 to stop the water from running off into the lake and then upped it to around a million. And I am sure there are lots of others like that. As you said, chemicals can't help.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

My personal belief is more phosphorus is introduced into the lake by homes that are not directly on the lake. Storm drains that dump untreated water from all the surrounding roads has to be a major issue.

Also, I live on route 11 and that entire stretch of road from Laconia to Alton Bay including Scenic Drive which runs parallel to route 11 and is directly on the water, is so heavily treated with salt and other various ice melting chemicals that I won’t even walk my dog down that road in the winter for fear of what it may do to her feet! That simply can’t be good for all that to wash directly into the lake!

Dan

There's an LWA presentation that I saw years ago (it might be on the website?) that agrees with this. It described the towns around the lake forming a watershed, like a giant bowl, and everything in the bowl collects on the bottom.

I don't know about your pollution point in the 50s-70s, gratefully too young to remember, but I would not doubt this. Nixon started the EPA in the early 70s and that has done a lot with cars, boats, factories, etc. I am optimistic that we can beat this different kind of problem today

[John Mercier]

The 50s - 70s was more about the immediate effects of manure/septic.

We had a lot of E Coli issues (still do)... but those are different than phosphorous.

We can also DNA test the E Coli to determine, or at least narrow the scope, of the species that it came from.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

There's an LWA presentation that I saw years ago (it might be on the website?) that agrees with this. It described the towns around the lake forming a watershed, like a giant bowl, and everything in the bowl collects on the bottom.

I don't know about your pollution point in the 50s-70s, gratefully too young to remember, but I would not doubt this. Nixon started the EPA in the early 70s and that has done a lot with cars, boats, factories, etc. I am optimistic that we can beat this different kind of problem today

In the 1950s, our nextdoor neighbors on the lake installed a new device that washed dishes. How quaint just for a summer season. We still use the sink.

Later, we found out that to insure wine glasses were spotless afterwards, the content of dishwasher soap was "improved" by adding an extremely high level of Phosphorus. Phosphorus settled deeply into the latest leaching field designs which, 50 years later, are now far beyond their expected lifetime. Decades passed before Phosphorus was notably decreased in dishwasher detergents.

This season's artificially high water level is pulling the sequestered Phosphorus out from those lakefront subsoils into the lake.

Tuesday's strong winds broke up the concentrations of blue-green cyanobacteria.

It'll be back.