Doug Timmons shares his view of the planning for the protection of Beaver Lake

Hello to All,
Most of you probably don't know me because I wasn't able to participate with this group as was originally planned. I am a lake property owner and very interested in preserving Beaver Lake, which means I do not want to see the water quality further degraded. The Tetra Tech study is good, good data identifying needed target measures regarding sedimentation, phosphorous and nitrogen.
When the Beaver Lake Watershed Policy Advisory Group (PAG) was first formed, my fear was that the PAG would develop a strategy that would allow further degradation of the water quality. Since the creation of Beaver Lake, our local leaders have not had the foresight to take any actions to protect the lake so I was suspicious that this would be a sham that would allow this PAG and our local leaders to pat themselves on the back claiming they are leading in the effort to protect Beaver Lake.
If you look at page 9 of the Phase 2 cost analysis, Tetra Tech clearly points to Strategy 2 because of the lower cost and lower regulations associated with that approach. Never mind that it only achieves about 50% of the recommended protection targets!!! The Strategy is supposed to be protecting the lake, but it is obvious that keeping the costs as low as possible is more important than truly protecting the lake, and heaven forbid we have to enact any regulations/ordinances! Strategies 1 and 2 will not protect the lake as needed, and will allow further degradation to the water quality. That should not be acceptible to anyone!
I have no idea why a goal of a group developing a lake protection plan includes minimizing additional regulations as a goal (especially considering there are not many existing regulations). That should have never been entered as a goal, maybe a desire, but certainly not a goal. It is not realistic to think voluntary measures alone will achieve the goal of protecting Beaver Lake. While cost is obviously important, when you are developing a lake protection strategy, the emphasis should first be on protecting the lake, not the cost. This study seems to be putting the emphasis on cost and ideology against regulation.

If the PAG is truly interested in protecting Beaver Lake, I would strongly encourage you to recommend strategy 3 or preferably strategy 4 because those are the only strategies that truly protect the lake. The public is going to know the results of this study and will know what the PAG decides so I trust the PAG will do the right thing. I hope I am wrong and worried about nothing, because I know some of you have put a lot of effort into this PAG. Protecting Beaver Lake should be a top priority for this entire region, and taking half measures that won't protect the lake should not be tolerated by anyone. I hope you all feel the same way and will fight for strategies 3&4.
Doug Timmons