Update to Lake Related Legislation

[John Mercier]

Not on this.
This is a housekeeping move.

Nothing stops them from working on the issue over the summer and entering a new LSR for next session.

At that time, they would most likely have a more comprehensive bill.

The basic premise that access to a public body of water is being impeded accept for the select few - I can agree with that.

I used to walk down and get in my boat, travel from Belmont to Chemung to fish/hunt.

At that time, there was really no public ramp on Winnisquam. The Laconia ramp has made public boating access easier, but it is limited. And if you have to pay a private party to access a property that you are an owner of - what does that really say about being an owner?

But trying to place it back in committee... with so much to be done already... just not a great idea.

The proponents should return next session with either a study committee bill, or something much more comprehensive.

[Descant]

If there had been any significant enthusiasm for this concept the bill could have been amended to make it a study committee. "Study committees/commissions are where good ideas go to die."

[John Mercier]

53 is pretty enthusiastic.

It is playing on a theme that I have seen getting out of hand in the last couple of years - complaints about McMansions and others developing their property - either lakefront or in the view shed.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Descant

If there had been any significant enthusiasm for this concept the bill could have been amended to make it a study committee. "Study committees/commissions are where good ideas go to die."

There is nothing good in this idea. Plenty of ocean for people to take their boats and anchor overnite.. or pay for a slip.

[John Mercier]

The idea is about allowing more access to the lake.
The proponents are framing it as evil government trying to restrict.

My concern is it would lower lakefront property values and shift taxes.

Something like the property on Meredith Neck would probably sell for considerably less than the asking price... and that one property has the ability should it sell at the top - or even higher - to double lake front property values moving more taxation away from the everyday inhabitants of Meredith and more toward the lakefront.

Obviously sleeping people are not going to make more noise, and more vessels with heads on board would help protect the lake from the current direct disposal that we know is happening, and more money from the permits for enforcement would help MP; but all that can be achieved without this bill.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

On March 6th, an important bill regarding wakesurfing will be heard by the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee.

HB 1390: an Act relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports.
Public Hearing: 03/6/2024 1:00 pm NH State House, Representatives Hall
Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development
LWA Position: Support

Analysis: This bill establishes prohibitions and limitations for the operation of wakeboats and their use in wakesports on public waters of the state.

The bill seeks to establish a wakesports zone as an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are at least 500 feet from shore on all sides and is at least 20 feet deep.

The Lake Winnipesaukee Association strongly supports this bill because we believe the science and physical documentation is clear – the wakes generated by wake surfing are having a detrimental effect on water quality and aquatic life. To be clear, we are not against wakesurfing, or other water-related sports. We appreciate that this is a fun, family activity enjoyed by many. However, the science shows that the wakes generated by wakesurfing can cause shoreline erosion, turbidity, and present safety hazards to people and children on the shore.

The science indicates that a minimum 500 foot buffer is needed to allow the wakes generated by wake boats to dissipate in order to prevent shoreline damage.

We have created a wakesports zone map to show how little of Lake Winnipesaukee will be affected by establishment of this zone. Clicking on the map will open it in a new window where you can zoom in to a specific area of the lake. The yellow line indicates the 150 foot headway speed or no wake zone from shore. The blue line shows the 500 foot distance from shore proposed in HB1390. There's a lot of lake out there to enjoy!

The legislature anticipates a large turnout for the hearing, which is why it is being held in Representatives Hall. If you can be there in person on March 6th to sign in your support of the bill, the better!

You can submit your comments and position in two ways:

1. Attend the hearing, and sign up in support on the forms on the table just inside the hall. You may also indicate that you want to speak in favor of the bill. Your remarks should be 3 mins and speak to how the bill will have a positive impact on water quality and the environment, and potential negative impacts if not passed.

2. Use the remote sign in form to also share your support for this bill:
Step 1. Fill in your personal information
Step 2. Select the date of the hearing
Step 3. Select the bill
Step 4. Indicate your support and upload your testimony.
Step 5. Review and submit.

Thank You!!

[John Mercier]

I haven't seen the science... so I can't speak to that.

But should we be entering a suggestion in the ear of one of the committee members to amend to all vessels?

It makes it easier to enforce when everyone is using the same rules... and we don't get into the favoritism of one format over another - that as we have seen just leads to industry adaptation to overcome the rule.

[first timer]

SO NEXT will be stop the wind from making waves.. there is a a plan to go atfer bigger boats too because of wakes made by them ,, DO NOT be fooled

[Winni P]

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

[Winni P]

Here is a link to the FAQs of the 2022 study in layman's terms:

https://www.lmac.des.nh.gov/sites/g/...-boat-faqs.pdf

Some quotes:

The report indicates the following outcomes:

1. Wake waves produced by wakesurf boats during wakesurfing are measurably larger than non-wakesurf boats in terms of maximum wave height, total wave energy and maximum power.

2. How a boat is used, or its “typical operation,” is an important consideration. Non-wakesurf boats can generate large waves when they plow water during acceleration to or deceleration from planing, but these boats generally spend little time in this condition. Wakesurf boats used for wakesurfing generally spend a majority of time in this condition. Non-wakesurf boats can be outfitted with aftermarket devices, like a wake shaper, to create wake waves suitable for wakesurfing.

3. Data like those produced in this report can be used to inform guidance on operational distance. For example, this study infers, depending on which non-wakesurf boat reference condition is selected, that at 200 feet of operational distance, the wakesurf boats would need to operate at distances greater than 500 feet or 425 feet from shore/structure/object, etc.

4. This study was limited to four boats and the testing period was relatively short. The study’s data and findings are important additions to the growing body of research in the area of wake waves; however, more studies of this type, as well as studies focusing on how waves and propeller wash interact with lake bottoms, shorelines and structures, are needed.

● Did this study examine shoreline erosion or failure of shoreline protection resulting from large boat waves?

No. The study did not investigate these topics; rather, it focused on characterizing the wake waves themselves. The results of this study will support further research focusing on environmental impacts like shorelines.
----------------------------------------------

Has there been any further studies done? It seems ludacris to draft broad legislation based on this study consisting of testing the wakes of 4 boats (2 wakesurfs/2 recreational boats) all 25 ft or less in a 2 month period.

[John Mercier]

We don't actually expend a huge amount on passing legislation - not enough to really change MP funding anyway.

Enforcement, other than funding, is an Executive issue; so not something the Legislature would work on, unless it was related to increasing fines. But if the MP doesn't write the ticket... the change in fine schedules means nothing.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Winni P

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Many of us don’t do that. It’s counterproductive to do this. The point is to have long straight runs of flat water that you can create a wake on. Going in circles, running over your wake is a hindrance. It beats the crap out of the surfer and makes it difficult to stay up.

Thats more fun for tubing.

[John Mercier]

The setback doesn't just suggest continuing circling... but a simple pass.
As more lake traffic develops, it isn't a single vessel creating the wakes or the resulting erosion.

The basic scope is that an abutting property owners usage is finite if it damages a neighbors' property.

The runoff - septic or otherwise - into the lake is considered the abutting lakefront owners doing damage to a public property, and thus gets restrictions.
But the public property owners can also do damage to their abutting lakefront neighbors - some restriction are going to occur there.

Personally, I just think creating what would be now three categories - if I am counting correctly - is just adding complexity to the issue.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Great point!

Also, if you look at the map drawn by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc, you can see that the bill still leaves the vast majority of the lake available. They are doing whatever they can to be reasonable about a sport that a lot of people enjoy. But the wakeboarders need to reasonable about minimizing damage to others

[Woodsy]

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

[Major]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill!

Unfortunately, useless feel good bills are the result of large governments with nothing better to do but to enact rules and regulations to control the populace. There are so many useless and superfluous rules and regulations, even if we had sufficient numbers of law enforcement they wouldn't be able to effectively enforce the laws.

The issue comes down to common sense and respect, both of which are lacking in today's world. Car manuals from 50 years ago had instructions to rebuild transmissions. Today, those same car manuals provide instructions not to drink the battery acid. That's all you need to know about the world we live.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!
Woodsy

It will be easy to enforce in the sense that the sport will effectively be eliminated from many bays and small lakes. Since wake surfers like calm waters, as they get pushed into areas where there is no protection from winds, there will be fewer and fewer days suitable for the sport.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers ared noticeable, I see most of trhem nevert leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, Kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who ow n many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[ITD]

My observation of large boats is that they go from one spot to another, anchor for the day, then go from that spot back to their home. My observation of wake boats is they come out, make many, many passes, stop for a while, letting others make many, many passes. All day long. The effect on the shore line is dramatic and non stop when the weather is good. The water is more silty and turbid from these boats. I am absolutely for this rule, I don’t think it goes far enough.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

Kayakers are part of HikeSafe. They would probably support moving to a boat registration format; but that may actually lower the amount of money moving toward SAR - as 100% of the HikeSafe goes to SAR and only $1 of a boat registration.

It would be a required purchase rather than a voluntary; but I don't what the ratio would be.

[codeman671]

The same basic wake-surf bill is being proposed in Michigan.

[John Mercier]

I think each plays off the other...
But I would really love to see the effects of the proposal on bodies that are not Winnipesaukee.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Vermont is doing the same. The VT Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules is set to vote later this month.

https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/02/fina...ke-boat-rules/