New PROPOSED Waterfront Property Milfoil "FEE"

[tummyman]

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 !!!!

[Lakegeezer]

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.

[NoBozo]

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.

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.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

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.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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.

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

[fatlazyless]

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?

[VtSteve]

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.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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.

[kauriel]

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!

[JDeere]

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.> >
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.>>
> >
One thing is certain, the only tax anyone likes is the one the other guys pays.>>
>>

[Lakegeezer]

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.

[no-engine]

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.

[Waterbaby]

Originally Posted by kauriel

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!

I like your solution; my boat has never been out of Winni, it "lives" at Paugus Bay Marina; I don't even have a trailer for it. When I did trailer the previous boat it was always to Winni, so there was no danger of my boat bringing in milfoil from another lake or pond, either.

As far as waterfront owners being less likely to be spreading milfoil, I have mixed feelings on that one. The way I understand it, and I admit I could be totally off base on this one, eroded water quality also contributes to the milfoil problem and those chemicals making those golf-course lawns so pretty feed into the water and erode the quality of that same water.... and nobody will every convince me the "chemical free" stuff used by some of those lawn companies is really, always, chemical free.

[TiltonBB]

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?

[Knockers]

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)

[AC2717]

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!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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?

[LIforrelaxin]

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....

[Slickcraft]

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.

[VitaBene]

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.

[John A. Birdsall]

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.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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....

Very well said.

[ApS]

Milfoil, at least, isn't poisonous.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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.

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.

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

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.

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.

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. . NB

[steadyon]

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