Three Case Studies of Lake-Area Growth Management

Prepared for the Deep Creek Watershed (Maryland) Growth Strategy Project

By the Growth Management Institute

(Commissioned by ERM, Inc.)

July, 2004

These case studies were prepared as part of the growth strategy study for the Deep Creek Lake watershed area, which was concerned with shaping future growth to maintain the quality of the lake, its environment, and related development. The case studies aimed to demonstrate a variety of approaches to managing development in a lake environment. The case studies responded to an outline of questions and issues.

________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Lake Arrowhead

General: Lake Arrowhead, located 5,100 feet up in the San Bernardino Mountains 90 miles east of Los Angeles, has been a recreational lake for generations, owned and governed by a community association. Not a large lake, its shoreline was developed long ago and development has crept up the mountainsides around it. Nearby lakes as well have attracted development. Visitors come for the lakes and for ski vacations (Big Bear Lake 25 miles east of Lake Arrowhead has three ski resorts), allowing the area to market itself as a year-round vacation mecca. More than 6,000 vacation homes are located along or near Lake Arrowhead, and 400 guestrooms and 500 cabin-rentals are available. The area continues to grow, although many of the existing and new homes are now inhabited year-round rather than seasonally.

Lessons Learned: One lesson is that an asset such as Lake Arrowhead is not an island unto itself. The Association tightly controls land use immediately near the lake but the county is responsible for the roadside environment of access roads and the development and public service quality of the clusters of development in surrounding areas. At present it provides little assistance in maintaining the quality of the Lake Arrowhead experience. Like many formerly rural counties caught in a growth spurt, San Bernardino county is only partway up the learning curve for planning to accommodate development and resolve growth issues. Another lesson is that issues can arise from the failure to look ahead to potential long-term problems. Lake Arrowhead opted out of the statewide program to allocate water resources about 40 years ago and now is without a fallback position for addressing the decline in the lake water level due to drought.

1. Setting: Lake Arrowhead was created as a lake resort in the late 19^th Century by damming a stream in the San Bernardino Mountains. Boise Cascade owned it for decades and developed Arrowhead Woods around the lake and up the forested mountainsides. The lake remains privately owned by the Arrowhead Lake Association, the community association of Arrowhead Woods, which has 10,000 lots of which about 1,000 remain to be developed. The Arrowhead Lake Association also owns beach clubs, another nearby lake, facilities at the North Shore Marina, and a strip and lake access points around the lake.

The area around Lake Arrowhead remains mostly in the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County, although the Big Bear Lake area incorporated as a city. The county has adopted some regulatory measures and is considering more to control the quality of development and environmental protection. Special districts for water supply, sewage treatment, and fire protection are the principal service providers, overlapping with school districts, community association areas, the Forest Service offices (for the San Bernardino National Forest), and other types of districts that form a confusing mélange of public agencies and responsibilities. The fires in 2003 have energized greater collaboration among these entities.

Lake surface area:        780 acres

Shoreline:                     14 miles

Deepest Spot:               185 feet

2. The year-round population in the Arrowhead Lake area is 11,396 in 2000, up 41 percent from 1990. The summer peak population can reach as high as 40,000. Housing units increased by 12 percent from 1990 to 2000, a much lower rate than the population increase and composed almost entirely of year-round homes.

5. The Lake Arrowhead Association owns a strip of varying width around the lake, allowing the Association to retain control over lake access. The reserve strips are based on contour lines for stated distances above sea level (e.g, 5,122 feet to 5,132 feet). Control of lake access helps to ensure that the lake will not become appreciably more crowded during the high summer season.

6. Boat slips require purchase of boat slip rights, obtained from the Association, which also requires notification and payment of fee for transfers of slips and rights, which may be severable from the lot.

7. Vision: The county’s 1989 general plan contains language that could be regarded as a vision statement, but it is very general and now outdated.       

8. Vision implementation: The general plan has many policies that remain to be fully implemented. An example is consolidation of adjoining special districts to provide better planning and administration of key services. The head of the commission charged with promoting such collaboration reports little progress toward this goal, with districts refusing to consider consolidation even in the face of demonstrated inefficiencies. The general plan is currently being updated.

9. Growth concerns: Lake Arrowhead residents generally believe that the Association’s control over development and lake access, plus the county’s zoning powers, will effectively manage growth. However, the 2003 forest fires demonstrated the difficulties of coordinating actions among the many entities responsible for providing services. In addition, a problem of rising concern has been the drop of over 20 feet in the lake water level due to several years of drought in the area (and in the West in general). The drop means that lake access is far more difficult and unsightly and lake recreational use has been affected.

Of immediate concern is a recent court decision that declared the lake water usable only for recreational purposes; taken literally, this puts the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District (providing water and sewer service to the Lake Arrowhead area) out of business  The Association and the CSD are attempting to work out a compromise solution.

Other growth concerns are due to the rise in use of new and once-seasonal homes for permanent residence, frequently by families needing affordable housing. Pressures on schools, roads, and other facilities have increased without clear-cut ways to build and/or finance additional facilities. (Many local roads, for example, have widths, turns and grades wholly unsuitable for improvement to standard residential use. Impact fees to fund facility improvements are not collectable on existing homes.)

10. Area management: The community association managing the Lake Arrowhead Woods development is responsible for managing services and mitigating nuisances. As might be expected, it runs a tight ship.

11. Environmental criteria to manage growth: Existing lots, of which there are a fair number, are grandfathered for development. Hillside and ridgeline protection will be improved by a fire safety ordinance just adopted that reduces development densities based on slopes (30% and above requires 3 acres per du, 15-30% can be developed at 2 d.u./acre) but there is no hillside grading ordinance. The tree protection ordinance does not prohibit removal but officials can negotiate tree preservation during subdivision reviews. (Tightening up tree preservation regulations is under consideration.) Development within 200 feet of designated scenic corridors is subject to special review, guided by rather general criteria..

12. Management of vacation rentals: The Association office provides a central point for receiving and responding to complaints.

13. Rental ordinance: none

14. Problems with large residences, including rentals: At this point, rental units are not viewed as a major problem. Most homes around Lake Arrowhead were built as modest second-home cabins decades ago. The steep terrain and concern for preserving the large trees endemic to the area tend to restrain home sizes, although some large lakeside homes are now replacing the older ones.

15. Adequate facilities ordinance: none except for county areas outside the immediate lake environment.

16. Non residential uses – proportion, prevention of conversion to residential use? The Association tightly controls land use around the lake. Most commercial uses on the lake shore are located in one center, which was expanded a few years ago and provides a good range of services and a nice overlook to the lake. Other commercial uses are in crossroads locations outside the area.

17. Enforcement effort: The Association enforces rules quite strictly.                 

18. Limits on slope development: see environmental question 11

19. Forest/tree conservation requirements: same

20 Architectural or scenic controls: same

21. Other aesthetic regulations: none

22. Signage problems/controls: Sign sizes are restricted and additional controls are placed on signs within scenic corridors.

23. Traffic problems and solutions: no major traffic problems

24. Parking problems and solutions: parking controls for properties

25. Property taxes vs. representation: not a problem

26. Special empowerment of lake residents: The Association provides this.

27. Current issues:        Decline in water level due to drought and facility capacity shortages as year-round occupancy increases.

________________________________________________________________________

Lake Tahoe Case Study

General: The combination of a beautiful lake in a mountain setting, with famous ski resorts nearby and a gambling haven on the Nevada side, made Lake Tahoe a national destination for tourists and a recreation mecca for the San Francisco metropolitan area. Development around Lake Tahoe, however, has threatened the lake’s unique clarity and has led to perhaps the most stringent regulation of any lake area in the United States. Located in two states and four counties, and among extensive national forest lands, the lake has been subject to intergovernmental attention for several decades. Proactive public restrictions on development by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in the 1980s generated major controversies and long-lasting court actions. TRPA prohibited development on lands sensitive to degradation and established a series of environmental thresholds as a measure of developability. TRPA, with the help of state and federal agencies, is focusing on assisting property owners in developing and redeveloping areas to adopt best management practices that would promote achievement of the thresholds. With the restrictions, little land is left for new development, numbers of building permits are declining, and buildout is approaching.

Lessons Learned: Strict regulations imposed by the TRPA have protected lands sensitive to erosion, loss of vegetation, and loss of scenic values to limit harmful runoff and maintain the lake’s clarity. Broad nationwide concerns for protecting the lake made possible the adoption of such regulations. But TRPA regulations stirred major political and court battles that have complicated and drawn out planning and development in the region for decades. Land deemed suitable for development has become increasingly scarce, escalating land values and promoting redevelopment of old and under-utilized areas.

1. Setting: Lake Tahoe lies two-thirds in California and one-third in Nevada, between the Sierra Nevada mountains on the west and the Carson Range on the east. The highest peak  visible from the lake is 10,891 feet. The lake surface is at an elevation of 6,225 feet. Many streams flow into the lake, but it is drained only by the Truckee River. The water is famously clear, to a depth of about 100 feet, but water clarity has declined in the past and maintaining and even improving its clarity is a major purpose for the stringent regulation of development around the lake.

            Surface area:    191 square miles

            Shoreline:           72 miles

            Deepest part:    1,645 feet

2. Population: The four counties in the Tahoe Basin have a population of 62,891. From 40 to 60 % of housing units in the four-county basin are second homes used seasonally (skiing in winter, boating and swimming in summer).

5. Lake ownership, access control: A movement to purchase the Lake Tahoe area as a national park in the early part of the 20^th Century did not succeed. As a result, the lakefront is mainly privately owned and access is controlled by private owners. TRPA regulations, however, control use of the water surface, so that boat slips, docks, and similar structures are rigorously regulated to protect water quality.        

6. Boat slips, regulations: see above

7. Vision: The TRPA has adopted strategic positions over the years in its two compacts, the adoption of environmental thresholds, the 1987 regional plan, and the 1997 Presidential Executive Order establishing a federal interagency partnership for coordinated action. The essence of the vision is maintaining and even improving water quality in the Alpine lake through careful development and redevelopment.

8. Vision implementation: A general plan and implementing regulations are administered by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, an intergovernmental organization established in 1969 by state and federal decrees. A new federal/state compact adopted in 1980 established environmental thresholds as the basis for approving development and required formulation of a regional plan to implement them. Threshold targets were established for water quality, air quality, soil conservation, vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, scenic resources, recreation, and noise.

To protect the lake while the plan was prepared, TRPA adopted a temporary moratorium on development of “sensitive lands.” In addition, the TRPA often required costly mitigation measures for development of properties in non-sensitive areas, using the thresholds as goals. Especially in the early years, decisions on developability relied on Forest Service maps of dubious reliability. Major controversies over these restrictions and conditions led to numerous court cases filed by angry owners of lake-area properties. The latest three cases, decided within the past year, reaffirmed the responsibility of the TRPA to take the actions it had adopted.

In recent years, TRPA’s regulatory posture has been modulated to focus on proactive approaches to promoting adherence to the thresholds in developing and redeveloping areas. The Presidential Executive Order of 1997 required greater coordination among federal agencies. Also the regional plan is being updated and is expected to be completed by 2007. The TRPA has moved away from imposing hard-nosed regulatory requirements to assisting property owners (the “BMP Retrofit Program”) to employ best practices in developing or redeveloping properties. To guide this process, the TRPA prepared an Environmental Improvement Program, listing projects, programs, schedules, and budgets for implementation actions needed to achieve the thresholds. Federal funding is available to assist private owners and public agencies in applying BMPs. Also, property values in existing urbanized areas have risen to make redevelopment profitable (redevelopment of rundown low-density development has been a long-term TRPA policy priority), so that infill and redevelopment is absorbing substantial amounts of current market demand.

TRPA staff say that development in the basin is approaching build-out and annual permitting has fallen off, in part due to the retrofit process, which requires a professional evaluation and recommendations for applications of best practices on every building site.

9. Growth concerns: With the latest court decisions, TRPA appears to believe that growth is being adequately managed through the threshold and BMP processes. No doubt some private property owners are still opposed to the TRPA’s strict regulatory regime.

10. Area management: The City of South Lake Tahoe is the primary local jurisdiction providing services on the lakeshore. It has the usual problems of curbing rowdiness, noise, and crime in the commercial area along the lake, which is complicated by its bisection by the state line, with gambling casinos on one side and tourist facilities on the other. Many of the motels and restaurants in the city are one- or two-story old mom-and-pop places and poorly laid out, which has stirred interest for decades in redeveloping properties for more efficient and attractive use of land.

11. Environmental criteria to manage growth: see above

12. Management of vacation rentals: Rental housing is available at various places around the lake but not in major concentrations.

13. Rental ordinance: None

14. Problems with large residences, incl. Rentals: not a problem

15. Adequate facilities ordinance: always a factor in reviewing development applications

16. Non residential uses – proportion, prevention of conversion to residential use. If anything, the opposite is the case – pressure for greater commercial use of residential properties.

17. Enforcement effort: Not relevant.

18. Limits on slope development: yes – see discussion of thresholds

19. Forest/tree conservation requirements:: as above

20 Architectural or scenic controls: as above

21. Other aesthetic regulations: always a factor in development reviews

22. Signage problems/controls: strictly controlled

23. Traffic problems and solutions: Traffic a major problem but air quality concerns prohibit major capacity improvements. Traffic management to reduce use of cars is an ongoing concern.

24. Parking problems and solutions: a major problem but actions are difficult due to air quality concerns.

25. Property taxes vs. representation: not a major concern

26. Special empowerment of lake residents: not a major concern except for the overwhelming regulatory presence of TRPA, which is viewed by some residents as a major contribution for protecting the lake environment and by others as an infringement on property rights.

27. Current issues:        Tension continues to exist between regulation property rights, even in little things like getting a permit for providing a few more boat slips. One continuing issue is the slowness of the public agencies in completing plans and approving development, which has been complicated by intergovernmental conflicts (between the states, within the states, between state and federal agencies, between federal agencies), inadequate funding, and what some people believe is poor administration and the motivation of slowing development.

________________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Lake Winnepesaukee, NH

General: This area was settled in the 1700’s with several historic villages dotted around the lake. The extensive Lake Winnepesaukee shoreline was developed with small cottages mostly owned by residents of central New Hampshire plus a strong contingent from Boston. It was and is very family oriented and a relatively small proportion of housing units are rented on a seasonal basis. In addition to the strong summer season focused on the lake, ski resorts at Gunstock Mountain on the south side are popular during the winter. The short summer season and distance from major urban centers tends to limit “high-roller” types of lakeside development. Lake access in most areas except the historic villages is hundreds of yards off state highways, along winding and mostly unpaved roads through wooded areas strewn with large rocks and boulders.

New Hampshire residents still tend to pursue public policies by talking issues out rather than adopting regulations. While some towns have zoning, the state Department of Environmental Services is responsible for protecting water quality in the lake, but regulations are not strict and are variably enforced. 

Lessons for Deep Creek Lake: Lake Winnepesaukee demonstrates the problems of adopting and enforcing anything but basic development standards in an area of highly fragmented, small local governments. It is also an area where (like Deep Creek) residents are suspicious of public regulations, which worked when lakeside lots were plentiful and many of the small cottages were owned by local residents. But complaints are rising as development absorbs available lots and, together with redevelopment, is increasingly impacting the terrain, scene, water quality, and infrastructure. Lacking an intergovernmental mechanism (the regional planning commission is strictly advisory), towns are scrambling to respond to voter concerns.

1. Setting: In central New Hampshire, surrounded by low mountains.

            Water surface – 72 square miles or 46,000 acres

            Distance around lake – 182 miles

            Height above sea level – 504 feet

            Islands – 251

            The lake surface is smaller than it seems because the shoreline winds around numerous peninsulas and coves. The winding shoreline allows for extensive development but lakefront lots are approaching buildout after relatively rapid development over the past 20 years or so.

A number of lakefront towns established 200 to 250 years ago prosper as recreation centers during the summer and year-round residential and service centers. A number of recreation developments provide lake access, as do many camps. Some year-round development has taken place in off-lakefront lots.

After the economic downturn in New England beginning in the late 1980s, development and property values slumped. A turnaround began in the mid-1990s as the economy, particularly the Boston economy, began to recover. Small seasonal cottages are being replaced by large, expensive single-family homes on the lakefront, few of which are rented. Islands, as well, are being developed. Some condominium projects have been developed.

Jurisdictions around the lake consist of eight New England towns, which are about the size of Midwestern townships. Most are quite rural except for crossroads village centers (some, like Meredith, really small towns). The start-and-stop growth spurts over the years have generated few pressures for restrictive regulations. There is no central public authority for the lake except the regional planning commission, which has only advisory powers, and the state Department of Environmental Services, which has regulatory jurisdiction over all lakes and streams. The Department’s primary regulatory device for managing development is the Shoreline Protection Act.

2. Number of Units and Population: According to a new demographic report by the Lakes Region Planning Commission, the 8 towns with lake waterfrontage had a population of 40,334 in 1990 and 47,370 in 2000, an increase of 17 percent. Of the 31,677 housing units in the towns in 2000, 11,089 or 35 percent were seasonally occupied. From 1990 to 2000, the number of total units declined by 11 percent, from 35,742 to 31,677. Seasonal units during that decade declined by 6 percent, a continuation of decline in seasonal units in the prior decade. (Staff at the regional commission had no explanation for these housing unit declines. It is possible that the declines in housing units from 1990 to 2000 were (1) mostly in rural areas suffering economic decline, and/or (2) may be offset by increases in lake-influenced development during the “boom” years after 2000.) From 1990 to 2000 total units in the 30 towns within the entire “lakes region” increased by 6%.

5. Lake ownership, access control:        The lake depth is controlled by a rather small dam at one end of the lake. Its height is determined by a tricky balance between providing downstream water and keeping a lake level suitable for boating, swimming, and fishing. No jurisdiction owns shoreline rights except for a few small lakeside recreation areas or  parks mostly in the villages.  

6. Boat slips, regulations – “water-dependent” structures such as docks and wharfs are subject to rules promulgated by the state DES. As a practical matter, there seems to be little control over the amount of dockage allowed per lot.

7. Vision: Some towns have prepared general plans but there is no lakewide vision statement.

8. Vision implementation:          none

9. Growth concerns:     Some town residents are concerned about the lack of control over redevelopment of existing buildings and lots and have formed a committee to urge adoption of local shoreline acts that they feel would allow better control. Prominent concerns include the visual impacts of larger houses being built on lakeshore lots and the automatic grandfathering of setbacks established by earlier developments. Some town zoning can control visual impacts but most such control is now done by jawboning rather than by ordinance.

According to the Moultonboro town office (Moultonboro has more shoreline than any other town), the DES “has 700 people who all give you different answers to any question you ask.” Townspeople believe that DES enforcement of the Shoreline Protection Act is pretty haphazard and inconsistent. It is apparent that grandfathering of setbacks and other land controls prevents correction of what are now understood as poor practices.

10. Area management:  Various towns/villages control nuisances by police and zoning but since most seasonal homes are single-family on wooded individual lots rather than clustered in noisy enclaves nuisances are generally not a problem. This is mostly a family environment.

11. Environmental criteria to manage growth?    The SPA includes environmental criteria and regulations for water and sewer facilities, including septic tanks and wells, woodland protection, erosion and siltation, and minimum lot sizes in the protected shoreland (within 250 feet of the high water mark). Generally, property owners must get DES permits pertaining to these features. Aside from septic perc provisions, the regulations do include several requirements for tree preservation, including preservation of half the “basal area” of trees within 150 feet of the high water mark, excluding the building footprint and dead or diseased trees. No replanting is required.

12. Management of vacation rentals: none.

13. Rental ordinance: none

14. Problems with large residences, incl. rentals: no regulation of these to my knowledge

15. Adequate facilities ordinance: none, except through informal negotiations during subdivision approvals.

16. Non residential uses – proportion, prevention of conversion to residential use. Not a problem here. Except in villages, where local zoning applies, the shoreline is backed by hundreds of feet of forest cover over to the main access highways, effectively discouraging shoreline commercial development except for marinas. Displacement of residential uses for commercial uses is not an issue.

17. Enforcement effort: State enforcement is apparently haphazard and inconsistent. Local enforcement occurs based on complaints. In these backwoods areas, lots of things slip through the cracks.

18. Limits on slope development: none except by personal pressure and in general none is occurring.

19. Forest/tree conservation requirements: see environmental above

20 Architectural or scenic controls: none

21. Other aesthetic regulations: none

22. Signage problems/controls:  Possibly in some village commercial areas but not otherwise. This is a very seasonal place.

23. Traffic problems and solutions: NHDOT is mostly responsible for the major roads in the lake area and is constantly upgrading facilities to handle increased seasonal traffic.

24. Parking problems and solutions:      no major problems

25. Property taxes vs. representation:    not a problem here

26. Special empowerment of lake residents:      the committee concerned with enacting local controls on shoreline development is considering some sort of lakewide organization but nothing firm has occurred as yet.

27. Current issues:        No major issues for the lake as a whole except for a drop in the water level that has lowered swimming and boating depths to uncomfortable levels in some areas, especially the small coves.

________________________________________________________________________

Comparative Study of Five Lakes

Summary of Lessons Learned

Our study of five lakes that are undergoing growth and development identified some experiences with problems and solutions that might be transferable in some form to deal with issues at Deep Creek Lake.

Expectations for the Lake Experience: The natural qualities of the lake settings and water are important to recreational users at each of the lakes, but development amenities and services are less widely valued.

• Water quality is an issue in all the lakes. Lowered or fluctuating water levels that make boating and swimming less enjoyable are also important issues. Forested mountain settings are highly valued.

• The presence on or near the lakeside of convenient and attractive commercial areas appears to be valued differently at each lake. Lake Dillon and Lake Arrowhead have established convenient and attractive lakeside community centers that provide a focus for lakeside activities. The City of South Lake Tahoe provides a multi-use recreational and service center for this large lake. Centers at other lakes are so-so affairs, often neither convenient nor attractive.

• Vision statements to guide future development usually express expectations for the type of lake experience desired by most residents. Lacking such statements, lake areas are left to drift in the current of whatever happens. At this point, only Lake Tahoe has crafted a vision statement for lake-area development.

• Master plans provide a more specific means of establishing goals and policies to guide development toward desired ends, but are not effective unless they pertain to the entire lake and surrounding area and are implemented through specific action programs. Lake Tahoe has and is updating such a plan, San Bernardino County is updating its plan for the Lake Arrowhead area, and Dillon Lake is preparing one, but lakes Winnepesaukee and Wallenpaupack have no unified master plans.

• Efforts to optimize the qualities of the lake experience appear to depend on the alternatives available – the degree to which the lake serves a unique purpose in the marketplace or is one of many lakes or similar recreational attractions. Lakes  Winnepesaukee and Wallenpaupack, for example, are in areas having many lakes, while lakes Dillon and Tahoe are rare in their areas. Lake Arrowhead is one of several lakes in the area but they serve a very large metropolitan population.

Use of Public Regulatory Powers: In general, except for Lake Tahoe, public regulation of development in the lake areas is not very restrictive except for specific health-and-safety reasons such as sewage disposal and water supply. (The exception to this generalization, Lake Tahoe, is recognized nationwide as a special case due to the need to preserve its pristine water quality.)

• While some lake-area jurisdictions impose some requirements for tree conservation and limits on development on steep slopes and ridgetops, regulations in general are minimal compared to best practices in some jurisdictions. (Lake Dillon is preparing more stringent tree conservation and slope regulations. 

• Three lakes (Winnepesaukee, Arrowhead, Wallenpaupack) are located in rural areas unaccustomed to strong growth management and are reluctant to discourage lake-oriented economic development.

• Unwanted forms of development (such as on hillsides) may be forestalled by informal civic pressures in slow-growing areas with a history of respect for the lake setting. (Lake Winnepesaukee)

• A local agency or jurisdiction with control over the entire lake area and a stake in maintaining a desirable lake environment can strongly influence the quality of development. (Lake Arrowhead, Lake Tahoe)

• Conversely, lake-based controls split between several local jurisdictions or between local jurisdictions and state agencies have more difficulty agreeing on and enforcing controls. (Lake Winnepesaukee, Lake Wallenpaupack)

• Adopting major restrictions on development without a supportive constituency can stir major political conflicts and litigation and complicate the planning processes. (Lake Tahoe) 

• Restrictive regulations to protect sensitive lands (hillsides, scenic areas, stream valleys, etc.) have been okayed by the courts in most areas, given their importance for protecting environmental qualities and achieving other community goals.

Control of Lake Use: Lake access and structures are viewed as important factors in controlling development and maintaining pleasant recreational use of lakes:

·        Access and in-water structures are controlled by a lakewide ownership entity in lakes Wallenpaupack, Dillon, and Arrowhead, and by public regulation in lakes Winnepesaukee and Tahoe.

·        Local control of lakefront access appears to provide the most certain control over use of the lake. (Lake Arrowhead, Lake Dillon)

Reducing Seasonal Impacts: The very qualities that draw year-round residents to a lake area also attract seasonal visitors – good news on the economic front but sometimes unpleasant for day-to-day living conditions. Noisy renters, traffic and parking congestion, unruly power-boat jockeys, and errant trash disposal are only some of the problems that arise when the crowds arrive for summer or winter fun.

• All the regulations in the world cannot be effective without routine enforcement of rules and requirements – pleasantly perhaps, but firmly and consistently.

• Like most policing activities, management of seasonal activities appears to work best if enforced “on the ground” by local people based at the lake who know the territory and can become familiar with the types and locales of problems that arise. (Lakes Arrowhead and Dillon)

The Growth Management Institute
5406 Trent St.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
Tel/Fax: 301-656-9560

Copyright (C) 2000, The Growth Management Institute