New PROPOSED Waterfront Property Milfoil "FEE"
 

In today's (11/20/10) Laconia Daily Sun, Rep. Richard Drisko (R-Hollis) is proposing a new fee that could be imposed by municipalities on waterfront property owners and would be dedicated to fighting milfoil on public water bodies. Drisko argues that waterfront property owners benefit from the control of milfoil since its removal benefits their property values. The "fee" would be set by individual communities, that could opt in or out of the fee process. However, all funds collected must be dedicated to milfoil removal. Once again, here we go hitting waterfront property owners. Let's review some other facts. Milfoil wasn't something that waterfront property owners necessarily brought into the lakes in NH. Boaters are the prime responsible parties, who, if they trailered their boats after being in an infested lake/pond, could easily transplant the weed into a lake. If any fee is needed, it should be assessed on boaters at a higher rate than it is today(a portion of each registration today goes to a fund to fight milfoil). What about people who use public beaches for swimming...they benefit from lack of milfoil. Will we charge them a fee to swim? How about those fishermen who come into the lake for a weekend tournament and who I believe do not have to have a NH boat registration....will we charge them a fee to just launch their boat to help pay for the milfoil? How about those seaplane operators that land on water....will we assess a fee on them for each time they touch water...and they could be contributing to the spread milfoil or other aquatic weeds all the time but are they going to pay for the clean-up? How about all those people who "pee" in the lake...will they have to pay a fee for increasing uric acid levels? The bottom line is that many people benefit from the use of public waters and many have contributed to the spread of milfoil. Time once again to contact your representatives and express concern for more unfair fee burdens on lakefront property owners. If Mr. Drisko is so intent on assessing fees to those alleged responsible parties for milfoil, then maybe he will be a strong advocate and file another bill to eliminate the statewide donor fee on property owners that do not call NH their residence and do not use any of the schools. After all, lets look for REAL equality....not just look for ways to stick it to the waterfront people who may not vote. CONTACT your State Reps !!!!

Milfoil is a problem for all of NH. It makes water bodies less desirable and reduces tourism, one of the economic drivers of the state. Fighting milfoil is the proper sentiment – but taxing waterfront owners is not the answer. Anyone who builds within a watershed is guilty of adding to the problem, to some degree. The shoreline protection act is one form of protection, but doesn’t cover building in the watershed. Adding a state milfoil fee to all building permits would be a better alternative. However, rather than another republican led tax, a better approach would be more funding to DES and UNH to find cures to reverse the declining water quality, which promotes milfoil.

I Wonder
 

Remember in the old days, if a kid needed some pocket change he could go out and pick up soda bottles along side the road and turn them in for cash? Back in the fifties we got two cents for a regular size coke bottle and five cents for a quart bottle.

Why not put a "Bounty" on Milfoil...say so many cents..or dollars per pound. Kids in their boats could collect the stuff and turn it in for cash. Then again, that probably wouldn't work because..well that would be Work. :D

At least it might provide enough cash to pay the kids cell phone bill. ...and get rid of some Milfoil at the same time. :) NB

EDIT: An added benefit: The state or municipality cound TAX the Income, thereby introducing the child to his Civic Responsibilitys as an adult, to pay taxes. :)

Sure, tax the waterfront owners for milfoil removal. Sounds fair IF the waterfront owners have exclusive rights to the body of water. Oh ... you say the public, including us Flatlanders, gets to use and enjoy the body of water. Well, shucks, it just don't seem right that the few should pay for the benefit of the many.

The problem with your proposal is the nature of milfoil. If not cleared correctly, you can actually spread it. If you just pick it, and even a tiny piece breaks off, that piece can root and start another batch.

That's why the stuff spreads so fast and is so nasty to eliminate

www.moosepondassociation.org ....... Suggest you take a peek at the milfoil photographs, plus get a good look-see at a milfoil eradication program in western Maine, about 20-miles east of North Conway, NH.

As I recall, your New Hampshire boat registration, up though 2009, included one dollar that went towards milfoil and other invasive weeds eradication. Starting with this last 2010 boat season registration, the NH invasive weed program, which definately includes milfoil, received five dollars from every boat registration, plus your total boat registration price basically doubled between 2009 and 2010.

Since 2008, the State of Maine has required out of state boaters to purchase and display a non-resident invasive plants sticker which costs twenty dollars. Failure to have one can cost $250.

For Maine registered boats, the invasive plants sticker costs ten dollars, and the sticker must be displayed on the boat.

What I cannot find is whether the Maine sticker is a one-time purchase, or a yearly purchase?

It would be nice every now and again, if legislators could just stay out of things. Let the boaters and property owners figure this out themselves. I know they never will, but let's just save money and pass time like they will someday.

How many times have we discussed the fact that the water front property owners don't own the water or milfoil in front of their properties. This seems ridiculous.

A waterfront tax would place burden on those less likely to be introducing and spreading milfoil, particularly for those who do not have a boat! Milfoil is often spread by boats, particularly boats that go into multiple bodies of water.

It would seem the solution would be to include a small fee in boat registration (for all boats) and to charge another small fee every time a boat is launched at a public or semi-private boat launch (meaning campgrounds and other facilities that charge fees for boat launching). Adding an additional launch fee might even reduce the number of launches and thus slow the spread of milfoil!

so, who pays?
 

The waterfront owners will pay the most serious price (property devaluation) if milfoil is allowed to grow unabated so, it seems reasonable that they should share on the cost to mitigate the damage, as well as all boaters and users of the lake.<O:p> </O:p>
Taxing beach goers, boaters etc…………..and spreading the burden to all who use the resource seems fair. Then again everyone who lives in the towns that border Winni benefit by the enormous tax dollars that are generated by part time residents.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p> </O:p>
One thing is certain, the only tax anyone likes is the one the other guys pays.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

In Moultonborough, the taxpayers voted to spend 200K of the 2010 budget to attack milfoil. Much of the money went towards chemical treatment, which worked great where it was applied. Some of the money was combined with other towns to acquire boats with a vacuum cleaner and NSCUBA diver air supply for hand-picking. Hopefully the town voters will approve another healthy dose of funding for 2011 - because controlling milfoil is a never ending battle. It can take five years just to get ahead of it. Many complain about government, but NH DES is a valuable resource in helping to treat the invasive weed. It is, after all, the state's water, so they are responsible for decisions about what to do - however DES works very well with the towns. Perhaps the rep from Hollis should focus more on getting the Hollis voters to pony up a few bucks to treat the problem in their town. The Maine approach of requiring out-of-state boats to buy a weed sticker is a good idea too.

There are so many bodies of water, how can the fees be issued to all? What about the ponds that are contained within State property? Or might have a little private ownership, and a public launch ramp?
Only makes sense to have fee as a portion of registrations.

Problem is in legislature, many are uninformed, and are followers to the pleading of a few.

Water Quality
 

Since milfoil affects the water quality everyone who benefits from higher quality water should share the burden. That includes all residents of New Hampshire who share in the tourism tax dollars. If the lakes were totally infested wouldn't tourism and the taxes generated by tourism decline?

How about the cities and towns (like Laconia) that use the New Hampshire lakes as their drinking water supply. Shouldn't they share the burden? Or is this just an idea to stick it to those that are presumed to have more money?

Maine milfoil sticker looks yearly,for post #6
 

I'm hoping I didn't screw up the attachment thingy!!apologies for the lengthy cut 'n paste.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1290369084
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1290368812
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1290369209
Sticker requirement
Beginning 2008, the purchase of a new sticker for owners of Maine-registered watercraft is automatically combined with the watercraft registration fee. The sticker, which now reads “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers -- Preserve Maine Waters” and is physically attached to the Maine watercraft registration, has been required since 2002 for all motorized watercraft on inland waters.

Owners of non-Maine registered boats will continue to be required to purchase and affix a separate nonresident sticker. Neither type of owner sees new or additional costs—just an automatically combined cost for owners of Maine-registered watercraft.

No sticker is required for operating a boat in tidal waters. The Warden Service determines the boundary between inland and tidal waters on tidal rivers. "Motorized watercraft" includes any boat with any type of motor, including canoes with electric motors and personal watercraft.

How much? Where to get it? Where to put it?
The Maine Resident sticker is physically attached to the Maine watercraft registration and its $10 cost is combined automatically with the in-state watercraft registration fee. The Nonresident sticker continues to cost $20.

The cost depends on the residency of the boat, not the boater! Out-of-state residents who register their boat in Maine pay the "Resident" sticker fee upon registration.

Stickers for Maine-registered boats must be purchased at municipal offices when buying watercraft registration. Stickers for non Maine- registered boats are available for sale wherever boats are registered or fishing licenses are sold. Place the sticker next to your registration sticker.

Non Maine-registered stickers may also be purchased on-line through the IF&W on-line store. (off-site)

for example:
my boat has never, and I mean never left Winni. It gets pulled at a marina and gets back into the lake form that marina, I do not have a trailer.

I already pay higher taxes for waterfront, why should I have to pay more AGAIN, if I am not the only one receiving the benefits

I HAVE GOT A GREAT IDEA::


REVIEW YOUR SPENDING BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO TAKE MORE AWAY

THIS IS NOT THAT HARD!

I am curious. Now that milfoil is in many spots around the lake and we all chop it with our props and drag it around the lake, does it matter if a new piece comes in from a visiting boat? Sort of like when you have the flu, do you worry about getting it again?

Interesting Thread
 

So as I breezed through this thread I though about many things... First is that this is a problem which no one wants to own. Second there seems to be a lot of controversy over who should pay for the work that is needed.

As a lake shore owner, I have no problem if they want to add a fee onto my taxes to help fight the milfoil problem. I benefit from a clean unaffected lake more then anyone else. My property value stays high, and I end up keeping a nice piece of lake front property where I can walk out on the dock and see the bottom. However I need to know that this money collected can't be moved in the towns or states budget to be used for anything else. I don't support calling this a Tax... it should be a use fee... just as it is added on to the boat registration as a fee. Now how to decided on how much that fee should be that is hard to nail down... but I would think making it a fixed percentage of one property value would be the best way...a 700,000 lake front home paying say a .01 percent fee would be 70 dollars. In the grand scheme of things that is peanuts. However people need to make sure that a law like this is draft properly... As the money needs to be tied to exactly what it is collected for, and can't be shifted to anything else. It also needs to have clause to protect people from an ever increasing fee. Examples, well lets see... after the initial implementation, the fee can only be raised by a factor of X, per year, up to a maximum of Y, for the life of the program.

Once again this is an issue where we the people really need to stick up for ourselves. Sure I am willing to help fund this type of project. But the money needs to be tied up appropriately so it doesn't get re-allocated. Additionally the amount of money that I can be expected to pay needs to be capped. Are these rule out of line? I don't think so... we have yearly contribution limits on all sorts of things, medical out of pocket expenses, which will soon be governed by the government thanks to the Heath Care reform, along with this goes life time maximum clauses... People need to stop thinking of the government and the laws as untouchable... Anything is possible. People just need to put pressure on the politicians.... If enough thought is put into something there can be effective legislation, that keeps the governments hands tied, so they don't get carried away with what they are doing... But if people don't speak up, and act out, we as the American public has currently done, loose control of our government....

The quality of the lake matters to many including: lakeshore property owners, boaters, fishermen, local tourist related businesses, tourists themselves and towns with lakeshore property. Milfoil is here and it is a real threat to the quality of the lake.

Control will take considerable effort on a long term basis and this will require real funding. But guess what; no one wants to pay for it.

Most town governments around the lake are starting to budget for milfoil control and there is some ad-hoc coordination of efforts.

As property owners in Alton and on Welch Island my wife and I have a stake in the quality of the lake. I suspect that most forum members also have a stake in the quality of the lake.

I don’t know what the best overall funding solution is but it is appropriate to have a public dialog as to various approaches.

Share the burden
 

As others have already said- this is not a waterfront issue alone. Neither of our 2 places is on the water, but I will gladly help pay to control this nasty plant.

milfoil
 

I am curious, if moultonborough does this chemical cleaning of milfoil, should not the whole lake or shoreline around the lake be done all at the same time?
it seems to me that we have been fighting this problem for 10-15 years and we are not gaining any ground the way we have been doing it. I understand that Alton Bay near the bandstand was done this fall. Now with the flow of water going to Paugus Bay does that take the chemicals or the milfoil that way.

Here is one major problem
the town's control the land and the lake is controlled by the State

you cannot really make it a fee on something because people could choose not to do what the fee would be on, such as boat registration and the like

Millfoil is a problem and yes as a waterfront owner I do not want it taking over the lake.

How bout a review of the state's budget as ALL the Lakes provide income for the state and towns as far as toursim goes. Just as a city like Boston works with the State (and yes I cannot believe I am saying this but it is true) to Preserve city's landmarks to bring in the toursim. Yes that comes from taxes and what not, but the point is how its done

So, since I cannot vote in NH and my voice can fall on deaf ears, can someone please propose a budget review and allocation of funds. I do not know about the rest of you, but when I have an added expense I review spending as a whole and see if I can afford it and then where I can cut on other ends, I just simply cannot go to the bank (the taxpayers) and take more out

Sorry off the soap box now

The area treated in M'boro was "upstream" from the rest of the lake but there is still concern that boaters can import it from other lakes or other parts of Winni. In addition, a lot of milfoil areas were not yet treated. The problem was knocked down, but constant treatment will be needed. Funding can't be seen as a one time thing. Like snowplowing, it must become part of ongoing town operations. Yes, the problem has been fought for 10-15 years, but support comes and goes. Imagine if you weeded your garden this year, but did not next year. The weeds would grow again. Until the water quality improves (phosphorus and conductivity down), milfoil will find a way to spread. Constant weeding will help, but water quality improvement will help more. There are areas of the lake where strands of milfoil drift into, but do not take. If the milfoil infested areas need to return to pristine levels of quality, the problem will largely go away. However - fixing water quality is a lot harder and more expensive than constant weeding.

So for the best overall results yes there is no doubt the entire shoreline should be treated at once. But of course this is never very feasible for many reasons. Having lived in Vt. on lake Champlain I can tell you this, be happy they are treating it, even if it isn't the entire lake at once. There has been infestation on Champlain for years... and unfortunately as the hot spots developed, they where not dealt with... Everyone waited for a overall plan for the lake. As a result the lake has some serious problems in certain locations, that right now they are having trouble control even with localized plans.

Don't worry that the complete shoreline isn't getting treated. Although the Towns and states to treat specific Area's so that the generalized issue don't continue to get worse...

Now someone also mentioned about state vs. local responsibility... Depending on how the rules and regulations of the state are written, it is most likely up to the towns to deal with there individual shorelines, and come up with treatment plans. These plans then get reviewed at the state level, and are granted state funding where it is prudent. Don't be fooled into thinking that the state will take care of it... It is the towns that have to make sure it gets taken care off, just like the state roads going through towns... the towns still take care of a lot of them... even though technically it is a state rd... like Rt25 etc.... the towns are just able to apply for grants and additional funding to offset the costs.

All I'm going to say at this point is that if there was a lake association or some kind of local action group that wanted to approach DES about developing a long term, lake wide, action plan for addressing the milfoil issues on Winnipesaukee in a well thought out and coordinated manner, it would be a wonderful thing...

The Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association (LWWA)
 

The Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association is a coordinated effort to develop a management plan for long term protection of the quality of the lake. My wife and I have volunteered to collect weekly water quality samples May through Oct, one small part of the overall process.
I don't know if LWWA plans on an active role in coordinating milfoil control but I will try to find out.
http://www.winnipesaukee.org/

Slickcraft, that would be great. Do you need contact info for any of us here at DES?

I own lakefront property in Alton and have since 1948. I pay $9,800 in taxes a year. I bought the property in 1948 for $15,000. The quality of the lake and the times I have on the lake have decreased, and the taxes increase. I say boost the registration fees on all the boats. This will not only effect the lake front property owners, but it will also effect the yahoos from MA who come up Friday night, drive around like they own the lake, and then pack up and leave Sunday. These are the people that are hurting our lake, not the lake front property owners. We already pay enough in taxes, tax the weekend warriors, they are the ones that introduced milfoil to the lake, make them pay to clean it up!!!!!

I suppose I should have guessed that you were at DES.:) Anyway I'll see what I can find out and if I need any specific contact info will send you a PM.

Many suggestions for different fee increases and uses of the fees.

Here's a novel idea. How about we figure out how to deal with the problem without another fee? I'm sure there is a fee in there somewhere that was originally put in place 20 years ago to deal with a similar issue. The issue was resolved but the fee remains. This is how we keep digging ourselves in deeper and deeper.

I am a waterfront owner and very concerned about milfoil. But I don't want to see yet another fee added to deal with it. The bureaucracy is big enough already. It's time to trim it somewhere else if we want to add another service.

What a great post, Merrymeeting! My thoughts exactly!

Very well said.

You sound like a bitter person. I hope I never find myself in your situation. Happy Thanksgiving!

I am sympathetic to your tax bill. But think of how high it would be if the out of state property owners did not help shoulder the burden without using the schools and most of the other town services. The problem is that spending increases faster than our incomes increase. Then if we are Lucky we get to retire on a fixed income. But the increases continue to go up.

We all have to figure out how to manage our budgets. When the town, state and feds learns to do the same painful process they will have a few dollars left over for milfoil control from the billions we all pay each year.

Here we go again—Feeding the Monster...
 

1) Milfoil grows best where there is an abundance of siltation—and siltation is the result of "land disturbance", coupled with structures and "impervious surfaces".

2) With every NW wind, I frequently see milfoil strands drifting past my dock: I ask myself, "Where did that strand come from?" :confused:

3) As a result of keeping my property in natural forest—entirely free of lawn—I'm expected to pay for the land-abuse of Moultonborough developers? :eek2:

The Lake has yahoos? :eek:

This year, funds collected for boat registrations didn't fare all that well. :rolleye1:

Contradiction
 

So on one hand, waterfront owners are told they do not "own the lake", so if someone wants to anchor 2ft in front of their house, there's nothing they can do.

But on the other hand, waterfront owners would solely bear the expense of maintaining the water.

Pick one people, you can't have it both ways!

pay for your own poison
 

The State of NH preferred alternative for getting rid of milfoil is to use 2,4 D amine herbicide. The label on this product says DANGER and that it is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. I am an island lakefront property owner in an area where milfoil is rampant. My water comes from the lake and I am exposed to this poison against my will.
There is such hypocrisy from DES on this issue.
On the one hand under the shoreland protection act they have taken almost all my property rights in the name of water protection. On the other hand they actively support dumping herbicide with a danger label directly into the lake. This year they dumped more of this stuff that ever before. Now there is a proposal to make me pay to have this done?
Wow!

Why not post a tax on the boat registration rather than the proprty owners?

The product has been proven to be safe. You are exposed to countless chemicals in your daily life but choose to focus on this one. What suggestions do you have to make the problem better?

The State is trying to do its best to control milfoil. All I hear is people complain about who should pay for it, how it should be used, etc. Stop whining folks I am getting a headache.

Here's a free idea, rid the lake of all NWZ's. That stuff loves to grow in areas that are nice and calm.

The IQ of the average forum member appears to be following a declining trend.

milfoil
 

eradicating milfoil helps everyone who uses the lake. Certainly the waterfront owner but also boaters, fishermen,swimmers, kyackers, and anyone who wants a better lake. Also since eliminating milfoil will help towns with shorelines to me if most will benefit then most should pay which falls on the towns or state. Moultonboro recognized this which is why they have a multi year plan to handle thsisproblem - kodos on them

And don't forget the New Hampshire taxpayers who benefit from all the tax dollars that go into the State coffers helping to reduce our burden by visitors to the lakes region. It is a shared liability and benefit. Needs to be a shared burden.

ANY Mention of "Amine" Should Be Raising Your Antennae!
 

Milfoil, at least, isn't poisonous. :look:

Because there is milfoil even in New Hampshire lakes that have few boats trailered-in, your suggestion has merit :). However, you don't see as many "kids in their boats" around Lake Winnipesaukee these days. :confused:

Is it our Popular Culture/TV/Electronic Age—or is it "Duck Itch"? :eek:

Have those communities that cleared milfoil—successfully—noted any change in Duck Itch occurrence? (Or snail-browsed algae occurrence?) :confused:

'Trading one problem for another one—that is possibly harmful—and definitely expensive? :confused: :( :confused:

YUP: Kids have been legislated off the lake because they have more than 25 HP..or they are under 16..or their parents won't buy tham a small boat because it's unsafe what with all those GFBLs, .....and whatever other regulations we now have that we didn't have in the past and got along fine without. :D

How about this.. There must be a brilliant out of work biologist out there who can "Discover" a non native species of Snail or something, that enjoys eating milfoil and cannot survive without it in their diet.

You import the Snail... or whatever it is, and it eats up the milfoil and as the milfoil population is reduced, the Snail..or whatever, dies off because there is no more milfoil..because they ate it up. :)

SO now the lake is free of milfoil....AND the non native Snail that ate it up. And the lake lived happily ever after, as it was meant to be. :look: :look: :look:

OH WAIT: In all this excitement ...I almost forgot: Some "Other" brilliant biologist will put BOTH the Milfoil AND the non native Snail..or whatever, on the "Endangered Species List" ..... and will then be protected against those Insensitive People who would eradicate them. . :rolleye1: NB

Just because there is an LSR proposed, does not mean that it will pass.