View Single Post
Old 06-24-2024, 12:44 PM   #55
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,405
Thanks: 1,305
Thanked 1,023 Times in 633 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterh View Post
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
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post: