I've been driving my sister around looking at lakes. We've been to MO, AR and OK lakes looking at the water quality, the shoreline and whether the lake was residential or not.
I don't guess I had ever thought about whether or not a lake was privately owned or public. There are lots of lakes that I've gone boating on where people had properties that reached to the shore. They built docks, boat houses, zip lines into the shallows. In short, they owned a slice of the shoreline.
Other lakes have no houses on them. The state or Corps of Engineers maintains the property rights along the shore of the lake and they provide camping spaces or picnic areas. No one owns shoreline and no houses are built on the waterfront.
Since my sister wants that boat dock, we're looking for a lake where lots are available on the shoreline. When we were chatting about it yesterday, I mentioned a couple of lakes that appear NOT to be residential (DeGray in AR, and Tenkiller in OK) and how pleasant they were to look at from the water. Big sis said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Now, don't get me wrong, whenever someone can work a Spock reference into the conversation, I'm completely entertained; however, it did make me think. That's exactly what the state/government/Corps of Engineers are doing. A lot of these lakes were engineered for flood control or for power generation. They dammed up streams or rivers so that they could harness the running water to turn some turbines. Since they made these bodies of water, if there is flooding, they could be blamed for loss of property. So they don't allow anyone to live below the "Corps line" or to build below a specific flood plain.
Keeping a lake pristine, or a shoreline free from commercial buildings is aesthetically pleasing for outdoorsman. Anyone can enjoy the lake and imagine they are out there alone. With no structures to impede the view, it's a more pleasant natural experience.
I've been on both kinds of lakes, in and out of the water. I can't say that I like one better than the other. Does having houses along a lake shore keep you from enjoying water sports on a lake? Inquiring minds want to know.
--Sandee Wagner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't care if there are houses on the shore as long as significant portions are available to the general public.
Beaches are a different thing. We made some darn long hikes with all our stuff in North and South Carolina to get to the little public path that runs between the houses to the beach. And it really ticked me off when hurricanes would come and wash away those freaking big houses and the government would pay OUR money to the folks to rebuild in the same spot where the next hurricane's going to wash them away again. But that's a whole 'nother issue.
Marilyn,
I do like to have public areas PUBLIC. I think all waterways should have some dedicated public access. Beaches are another topic for sure... spw
Post a Comment