Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant
It appears that there are no penalties specified for violation of RSA 207:26. Is that correct? At the very least, I'd think the State Rep and or Senator you mentioned way back might be able to add a paragraph that specifies a fine for failure to post, and perhaps specify that failure to post may make one liable for related injuries.
Usually, I would expect some sort of warning procedure from Fish & Game, as weather can play a big part in keeping the posting in place. Those who are in the business usually check signs and replace as needed. There are usually "spares" found floating in the lake in the spring.
The language about 150 feet may be a little harder to enforce as weather, currents, springs, etc also affect where water may be open. Your Rep/Senator has researchers available, and DoS, F & G and DES all have some very knowledgeable people. There may be a solution.
I've often wondered if the presence of large numbers of bubblers has a long term effect on water temperature. Does it extend or enhance the growing season for variable milfoil? Moultonborough puts a lot of money and effort into controlling milfoil. It would be ironic, to say the least, if bubblers are making the problem worse. I believe the Town can follow the state law and enact an ordinance related to bubblers which would allow them some enforcement authority. (The Selectmen may not want it. Talk to the Conservation Commission or the milfoil committee if there is one.) They may need to have their Reps/Senators add some enabling language to the related RSA.
The NH Lakes Association is always interested in water quality. They have some expertise as well, and may have knowledge of problems on other lakes. In order to do anything legislatively, you need to broaden the scope. One neighbor against another is just that, no more.
|
Thanks for the reply.
1. Regarding the state law:
Quote:
TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Use of Aqua-Therm
Section 270:33
270:33 Heating, Agitating or Other Devices in Public Waters, Safety Hazard. – No person shall put, place, operate or cause to be put, placed or operated in the waters of this state any so-called heating, agitating or other device which inhibits or prevents the natural freezing of water, or forming of ice, and impedes either the ingress or egress to or from ice by means of any public access thereto. If the heating, agitating or other device is placed anywhere else, nearby signs shall likewise be placed to warn of possible danger. Said signs shall read DANGER, THIN ICE and shall be of sufficient size to be readable at a distance of not less than 150 feet, and shall be visible from all directions and shall be equipped with reflectors and color-coded in a pattern unique for this purpose only. The department of safety is hereby authorized to establish said unique design and coloring and any homemade copies shall follow this design and coloring. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by any law enforcement agency under the direction of the department of safety pursuant to RSA 106-A:14 and the department of fish and game pursuant to RSA 206:26.
Source. 1973, 321:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
|
The response years ago from DOS, Marine Patrol, was that an abutter was not "public access." Also, that riparian rights was a civil matter.
My concern at the time, and now, is first SAFETY, and LAKE PRESERVATION, and respecting the RIGHTS of recreational users and abutters. I focused on the SAFETY aspect, and DOS, Marine Patrol had no issues with the unregulated, 24/7 use of the aquatherms or the hundreds of feet of open water. Fish and Game was helpful, as well as DES, but the enforcement they conceded was with DOS. And they punted.
As you mention, I agree that would simply take a legislator to successfully change the language from "public access" to "public or abutter access." That would handle our specific Bay, but not the entirety of the issues on Lake Winnipesaukee.
I also agree with adding 'teeth. There has to be a consequence, or it has no teeth until something happens and civil litigation is an option (or if someone is hurt or dies, then it could be a criminal matter).
~~~~
Regarding other good issues you raise, vegetation. The subject abutter, after decades of legal dump truck loads of sand on a beach that is simply not designed correctly with respect to the lake level, still has consequences. The open, sun feeding beach area is fully vegetated. A winter ice, sealing off the sun, never gets a chance to do what nature does in the winter.
As one on the video stated, regarding spawning, I used to see clouds of smelt every spring after ice out. It has been years since I've seen one. I also noted to F&G that, on one occasion, the entire bottom of the lake of one abutter was pure silver and black from a school of smelt that must have been drawn in to the aquatherm. I didn't take a photo, and they said they had never heard of that before.
I also agree that the BOS in Moultonborough really doesn't want to get into this at the local level as it is the state waters. However, after I make the communications indicated in the previous post, it is up to them, or some department, agency or commission thereunder.
~~~~
Regarding the neighbor on neighbor, it isn't the matteler. On this particular issue, I have greater concerns that either. Since my family has grown, we no longer snowmobile, or take ATVs on the lake. So, currently, I am personally not looking to use my access in the winter. However, should I want to, I would notify each and provide the opportunity to correct the situation; if not, I would obviously take the legal route of protect our rights and safety.
Again, thanks for the input.