[HarborSide CHBay]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

This is an example of why we don't need to keep adding more laws and instead better enforce those already in place.

I know of several cases where aquatherms are being used for "seasonal" dock systems because the owners don't want to bother removing them. Why not start with making sure that seasonally permitted docks are in fact just that?

(this is not a question for you shore things. I appreciate your frequent and educational posts. Rhetorical...)

I actually agree.

I just don't, as an individual, have the legal or regulatory authority for the compliant and safe operation of the aquatherms. That is under the purview of the state governance and enforcement departments.

They won't.

NH Safety, via MP, came to the lake when there was 600-800' of shore front open 200' out. They took no action. They did tell me I need 3 more signs (4 in total, one in each direct), although the 24/7 abutter had no signage at the time at all and now have 1.

NH DES said it would favor an interpretation of 270:33 that "public access thereto" included all waterfront in the winter as the lake level is 20+ feet from the high water mark and should be considered "public" as it is the state's. However, the safety aspect was NH Safety. This was verbal.

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.

It has been 30-years since this has been updated. I'd be satisfied with with adding 2 WORDS "public or abutter," for me as it solves the issue and can be enforced. It doesn't address others who open up waters along their own shorefront, or outward into the lake.

Chapter Env-Wt 400 which regulates dock construction begis as follows:

PART Env-Wt 401 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EVALUATION

Env-Wt 401.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public trust and other interests of the state of New Hampshire, by:

(a) Establishing requirements for the design and construction of structures, ADDED (see comment) and subsequent operation of ice retardant systems, in order to prevent unreasonable encroachment on surface waters of the State; (emphasis added)

(b) Preserving the integrity of the surface waters of the state by requiring all structures to be constructed so as to insure safe navigation, minimize alterations in prevailing currents, minimize the reduction of water area available for public use, avoid impacts that would be deleterious to fish and wildlife habitat, and avoid impacts that might cause erosion to abutting properties; ADDED (see comment) or reduced lake access to abutting properties, including but not limited to, subsequent operation of ice retardant systems in all such above regards, and (emphasis added)

(c) Ensuring that all projects are constructed using the least impacting alternatives, in a manner that meets the requirements of RSA 483-B and shoreline and bank alteration or stabilization requirements.

Thank you 'shore things for this reference. I was unaware of it. It appears, IMO, that it deals with "construction approval?"

I would also recommend small language changes (IN RED ABOVE) to this that would basically make some of these purported impacts during the application process must be maintained thereafter, with revocation of a permanent dock for subsequent non-compliance (obviously, with various levels of warnings).

This would provide a 2-prong 2-Department enforcement approach; (1) NH DES dock permit and subsequent operation of ice-retardant systems as per application as a condition of retaining the dock permit) and (2) NH SAFETY under the language changes in the above mentioned RSA.