Anchoring near a swim platform

[Lakegeezer]

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I spent some time looking, but did not find an answer, in the forum archives or the NH regulations. We were anchoring in one of our long time favorite coves. In the past five years, property in the cove has been purchased. There are now a few docks and a swim platform was placed right in the middle of the cove. We only anchor if we don't see anyone around, which was the case. The owners came back from a lake cruise, and found us anchored in the cove. They were nice in asking us to move, but mentioned that by law, we were required to anchor at least 150 feet from the swim platform. We left, but I was left wondering about that law. It seems crazy that someone can put an unregistered swim platform in the middle of a cove, and effectively prohibit anyone from using the cove at anchor. There is no way to be 150 feet from the swim platform - and 150 feet from the shoreline.

I'd like to read the regulations are about anchoring - from the shoreline, or from any thing else - I just can't find them.

[Steve]

I believe they are supposed to have the swim platform within so many feet from shore. It may require a permit too.

[Just Sold]

Here is the Boating Guide of New Hampshire section on rafting. Read the underlined section. I know it is discussing "rafted boats" but I think an anchored raft or moored boat meets the same requirement of this law. I hope it helps.


Rafting in New Hampshire
Raft is defined as “any group of 2 or more boats which are stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond and which are congregated together, whether anchored, secured to one another, or adrift, provided that at least one of the boats in the group is occupied.” Rafting is “forming or being a member of a raft.”

-There are designated locations and times in or during which the size of rafts are limited and a minimum distance is required between boats and rafts.
-Currently, there are rafting restrictions in certain locations on Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Sunapee and Ossipee Lake.
-No one in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time may:
Form or allow the boat, which you are operating or in charge of to join a raft consisting of 3 or more boats.
Form or allow the boat, which you are operating or in charge of to join a raft if any part of such raft is: less than 50 feet from any other raft; or less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat, which is stationary on the waters of the same lake or pond.
Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary on the waters of a lake or pond, other than momentarily, if any part of such boat is: less than 50 feet away from any raft; or less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary on the waters of such lake or pond.

[Lakegeezer]

Fat Jack – do you know where the law about swim platforms is available to read? Even though there are 1000 miles of shoreline on the lake, there are really few that are protected enough during a wind to anchor and eat a picnic lunch in peace. When a person buys a house near an airport, they can expect some noise. When someone buys undeveloped land in a protected cove, they should expect that it will be shared. Unjust disturbance is of course unacceptable, and disturbing people are a big problem on this lake – but I think it is wrong to allow land owners to designate their coves as no-anchor spots. While the rule “don’t go over headway speed with-in 150 feet of a swim platform” would apply here, I have never seen the rule that says don’t anchor. Note, I’m talking one boat – not a raft of boats.



Just Sold, thanks for your posting. I saw that regulation too, and did not think it applied. I don’t see how a swim platform a raft by the legal definition. It is not a boat. It is not registered. It was not occupied.

[KonaChick]

Fat Jack..the law states that one is to go headway speed w/in 150' of a swimraft so it can be said that anyone with a swimraft is protected from fast boats at least up to a 150' radius. In reality that isn't true. Boats more often than not zoom past swimrafts at all different speeds...by the time MP is called these boats are long gone. We've had many problems with this but NOT from uneducated boaters who are coming close for a look-see but from the people who live in the cove we're on! We thought the swim raft would be a great idea to keep the speed down but these people almost do it on purpose as if to say..HA HA you're swimraft will do NOTHING to keep us from going at alaraming rates out of the cove...it's really frustrating. So I guess what i'm trying to say is..you think you're protecting yourself from fools but more often than not the law is unfortunately inneffective. I didn't know swim rafts had to be w/in 75' of shore either..the dock guy who installed ours said it was w/in 150' of shore...anyone know who's right??

[Skip]

Hi Lakegeezer,

You search in vain, the 150' foot rule for swim platforms applies only to headway speed.

There are too many RSA's misquoted above to list them all here, suffice to say someone was spinning quite a yarn again.

To simplify, you must secure a permit to erect a swimline, and the allowable uses of such are very detailed. Only with permission of the permittee can you then operate a boat within the line. As for the 150' foot rule, it has been explained a number of times in previous posts.

As for anchoring close to shore, you must visit the Administrative Rules (saf. 400) to find specific listed exceptions that invoke a 150' rule in clearly defined restricted areas. Each area is clearly detailed in that reference. There is no general 150' anchoring from shore rule.

As for rafting, a swim float/raft is not a "raft" as defined for boats being tied together, therefore the "rafting" rules for boats do not apply to swim rafts, as alluded to in an earlier post.

As always, your best and only reliable source of information is to call the MP office directly. It is unfortunate that with the correct information readily available, some still feel the need to fan the flames of internet debate by posting erroneous information.

Fat Jack's baseless attack on out-of-state boaters indicates to me he was looking more towards causing another "us against them" bash fest then trying to relay useful information to the readers of this site.

But then again, what else is new?

Anyways and always, please feel free to e-mail me off-line if I can help provide any further information.

Skip

[Belmont Resident]

To the best of my knowledge there are no exceptions to allowing a boat inside of a roped off swim area. That is why all swim areas must be completely closed off at both ends. A swim area is defined as a safe haven from boats where swimmers may gather free from fear of boats entering.
Although this same area while being roped off is also still public property and open to anyone who wants to swim there. I wouldn't but that is the way it was explained to me.
You are correct about the 150' rule and its application to headway speed as well as in some instance no rafting zones having 150' restrictions on anchoring from the shore. I’ve heard of other no rafting zones with less than 150’ restrictions on anchoring from shore.
If an area is not designated no rafting then you can have as many boats tied up together as you want. We've had up to and sometimes over 10 boats over the years.
I do not believe there are restrictions on how far a boat has to be anchored from a swim raft as it is located out on public water. Unless the swim raft is located inside of a swim area.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

To the best of my knowledge there are no exceptions to allowing a boat inside of a roped off swim area. That is why all swim areas must be completely closed off at both ends. A swim area is defined as a safe haven from boats where swimmers may gather free from fear of boats entering.

It may seem strange, but you can operate a boat (albeit carefully) inside a swim line with permission. See highlighted rule section (a).

Since there is so much interest in swim lines and their usage, I have attached below the rules governing same.

Hope this helps answer everyone's questions,

Skip


Saf-C 404.08 Swim Lines.

(a) No person without permission of the permit holder shall operate a boat within any permitted swim line on any public body of water.

(b) No person shall put or place a swim line in the public waters of any public body of water without prior written approval of the director.

(c) No swim line shall be approved which:

(1) In the opinion of the director constitutes a hazard or obstruction to navigation;

(2) Extends into the water beyond the point where the depth of water exceeds 6 feet or for a distance from shore of 50 feet, whichever occurs first; or

(3) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for the enjoyment of the public water.

(d) The director shall accept written requests for a waiver of the restrictions imposed in paragraph (c) above. The request shall include the name and address of the person requesting the variance as well as the location of the proposed swim line. The reason the request is submitted detailing specific water depth and distance from shore shall be included.

(e) After receipt of a request for a waiver in conformance with (d) above, the director shall conduct a visual inspection of the proposed swim line site. A waiver shall be granted if the director determines that the proposed swim line does not constitute a hazard or obstruction to navigation and the granting of a swim line does not diminish the residential, recreational and scenic values that the public water provides to all users of the water.

(f) A swim line permit shall be approved on an annual basis if information contained on each request for a permit renewal is identical to the prior year's permit and waiver application

[Belmont Resident]

Your right, I was told different when inquiring at MP central.

[KonaChick]

Skip...ever think of applying for a job as an MP on the lake?? Your knowledge is so vast and exact I think you would make one of the best MP's out there!! We need guys like you on our side

[fun spot fan]

I have a question about swimming near shore once you have anchored your boat 150 feet or more away from shore. Is there a legal distance that a person may go toward the shore as a swimmer, or do landowners really own or have rights to the lake water that comes up to their beach?

[Skip]

Fun spot fan,

To reiterate once again, you are not required to anchor 150' from shore, unless you are in a specific restricted area.

In NH public waters, the water is "owned" by all citizens up to the high water mark.

Below is the NH RSA defining public bodies of water....

Skip

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.

[Skip]

A little background for those of you following this thread.

Lake Winnipesaukee, by statute, is a public water.

Any and all individuals (including abutting land owners) have equal access to the Lake up to the high water mark with land.

Now, FJ cites his "over-riding" littoral rights as a landowner.

Actually, the use of the word "right" in this case is a misnomer.

He should have used the term "littoral privilege"...

The State has control of the waters in front of FJ's home, and therefore can allow him the privilege to construct a swim line, post a mooring or build a dock or float. The ability to do this as an abutter is a privilege, not a right. In certain instances the State can control access and anchoring...which it does on a very limited basis.

And that is the key difference FJ. You do not have a "right" to do these things, but you do have a "privilege" granted you over others as a land abutter. That privilege is granted by the State (the people) and can subsequently be revoked by the State (the people).

That said, the Lake remains the property of all the people, regardless of your "privileges" as noted above.

For example, as has been previously detailed, anyone can swim within a granted swimline. If the area is not restricted, anchoring is allowed up to the high water mark.

Once again, the Lake is the property of all the people.

The State also has a responsibility to ensure that the landowner has equal and unimpeded access to his/her property, and the landowner has the same right to use the Lake in front of his home as a visitor does.

That said, an abutter cannot use a swim line, or a float or even a mooring as a tool to deny equal access to any other individual to the waters of the Lake. If he does, then the people can petition the State to remove those privileges granted to the landowner.

The only right here is the right of all the people to enjoy an entity that belongs to everyone.

Hope this helped explain it a little better,

Skip

[alton boater]

We have been summer residents of Alton for almost twenty years. A favorite place of ours to anchor and swim has been the old Alton Boys Camp, where the Baer Compound is now located. Some of the residents in the cove seem to think they bought the water along with their property. They have chipped golf balls from the beach at the boats, thrown water balloons with a huge sling shot and most recently put out a diving sign to deter boaters. One of the residents, came between the boats very fast on a jet ski. Fortunately, no one was swimming at the time. We have recorded most of these incidents on on film. They have called Marine Patrol numerous times. The patrol boat pulls up, observes us and usually waves and moves along. We do keep 150' from shore. One day we had a very nice chat with a Marine Patrolman and even took pictures with him much to the dismay of the landowner watching through binoculars. He informed us that next time they pull those stunts, we shld notify them and they will come and call the local police.

[fun spot fan]

[Thanks to Skip for clarifying how close a swimmer may go to the shoreline that is private property if you are anchored off the shoreline. But I do not know the legal height of the "high water mark" you mentioned as the distance one can go up to shore. Please help. And thanks for all your info.

[Bear Islander]

The Supreme Cort of New Hampshire has ruled that "owners have common law property rights" despite RSA 271:20.

Note the word "rights" used by the Court. So property owners do have rights to use the lake that others do not have.


W. A. Sundell & a. vs. Town of New London
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
119 N.H. 839, December 12, 1979
HEADNOTE
1. Waters--Public
Both at common law and by statute, title to waters of a great pond vest in the State for public use. RSA 271:20 (Supp. 1977).
2. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Although statute, vesting title of lake waters in the State for public use, provides that no individual shall have any rights not common to all citizens, littoral owners have common law property rights which are more extensive than those of the public generally, which could not be taken without compensation, and which were not affected by the statute. RSA 271:20 (Supp. 1977).
3. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Private rights of littoral owners include but are not limited to the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to their shore for a variety of recreational purposes, the right to erect boat houses, and to wharf out into the water.
4. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Although waters of great ponds are public waters, littoral owners have private property rights which are separate from, independent of, and more extensive than the public's rights.
5. Waters--Public--Littoral Owners
Since owners of shore property around lake have private littoral rights separate from the public's rights, court did not err in declining to direct verdicts for the defendant town, where littoral owners brought a private nuisance claim against the town seeking damages for interference with their littoral rights, and not for interference with rights common to the public.

[John A. Birdsall]

It seems to me that I have been informed that in order to have a mooring or a dock one must have 75' of lake frontage, or get permission by abutting lake front property owners to allow this as part of the permit process. And I agree that "rafting" and having a raft or platform is two entirely different aspects.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Supreme Cort of New Hampshire has ruled that "owners have common law property rights" despite RSA 271:20.

Note the word "rights" used by the Court. So property owners do have rights to use the lake that others do not have.


[B]W. A. Sundell & a. vs. Town of New London
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
119 N.H. 839, December 12, 1979

Let's try this one last time....

The original intent of this thread was to question whether a property owner could put out a swim raft and then order boaters to anchor at least 150' away.

The answer still and was no.

The situation became muddled when Fat Jack (who later admitted to same) posted false information and insinuated he would get a swim line and raft to close of his portion of a bay.

That clearly is not the intent of allowing swim lines and common law and State Statute will not allow you to "claim" a portion of a public body of water for your own by doing same.

Now comes a small portion of a 1979 case. The case cited (although you wouldn't know it by the handful of paragraphs excerpted from a number of pages of text) was not in reference to any of the above. Rather it was a case arising out of eminent domain issues due to the accusations that the outflow from a creek receiving treated sewage denied property owners their rightful usage of waters adjacent to their properties.

The basic common law philosophy stated in the few cited paragraphs are not in dispute here. A lakefront owner has the ability to construct docks or piers, a boathouse, float a raft, obtain a mooring permit or build a swim line...opportunites that a non-landowner does not have. That opportunity is not available to a non-property owner, hence a literal reading of the RSA stated would leave one to believe that a non-propery owner could do & build the same as a property owner. We all know that is not the case and the Court was stating the obvious.

There is other case law cited in the above reading that concerns abutters blocking other abutters usage and views with piers, docks, boathouses and the like. In each instance, while there is no one clearly defined definition or delineation of the size and scope of the projects in question, the Court stated that the standard to be used in this State is, is the structure or intended use reasonable?

Remember the word "reasonable", as that is the standard the Court hangs it hat on in cases like these.

A shore front property owner has the expectation of reasonable use of the water in front of his/her property. He/she has the additional ability to build accessory structures on or into the water as long as the usage is reasonable. But that person does not own the water adjacent to his/her property. That person cannot use those accessory structures in an unreasonable manner to deny enjoyment of that same body of water to his abutting neighbors, or the public at large. FJ, nor anyone else, can constuct accessory structures or employ swim lines or rafts to deny abutters or the general public common usage of public property.

Again, the bottom line is the Lake is public property, to be enjoyed by the public. And no member of the public, whether lakeside property owner, swimmer or boater, can utilize unreasonable methods to deny any other person reasonable usage of such property.

Its actually quite as simple as that...dare I say a common law (and common sense) concept?

Finally Fat Jack, I am disappointed that you insinuate that I posted this case law previously while taking the "other side" of the same issue as you so claim. I have done no such thing and quite frankly the first time I ever reviewed this case was today, after seeing a partial portion of it posted here. You have a long history of posting false and/or inflammatory information on this site. However, I won't get angry at you for the false charge you have made against me. Unfortunately I have come to expect such behavior from you as the norm.

Isn't that sad?

[Sschaar]

It seems to me this is all a big waste of time. Basically there are but a few MP's, and how many boats use the lake. If your a landowner this is going to go on, and on, forever and there's nothing you can do about it. Yes, you can complain, and somebody may even get a ticket one day. But the next day somebdy else will take their place. If the cove or the island is that appealing to boaters, it will be to another and another. So who are you kidding. You bought property on a public lake. Get used to it.
And as far boat operators are concerned, it seems like your state is selling you out. The goverment should be buying up these islands or condeming them so that they can remain the domain of the general public, to be used by the public, not for the rich and famous.

[JG1222]

Originally Posted by Sschaar

The goverment should be buying up these islands or condeming them so that they can remain the domain of the general public, to be used by the public, not for the rich and famous.

I really can't understand this overwhelming sense of "entitlement" that some people have when it comes to stuff like this.

Why should the government be buying up all the islands and waterfront properties - Just so you can have one too? There's an easy way to have one for yourself - go out and buy one.

However, for the vast majority of people that don't have owning a island on their list of priorities, why should they be forced to pay for it (a la higher taxes).

I think it all comes down to common consideration of other people. I commend Lakegeezer for wanting to be informed on the regulations of anchoring. Whether it was right or wrong of the landowners to ask him to leave, the most commendable thing I took from his post was that he was willing to give someone some courtesy and he left - that's it. It could have easlily turned into a pissing contest that could have escalated, but both parties maintained some civility, which is becoming less and less frequent everywhere.

[Sschaar]

Why would I want to spend my hard earned money on buying a island when as far as I'm concerned the lake is public, I own it. I've always owned it. If I want to take my boat and park it right by somebody's kitchen window, I'm going to do it and I have every right to do it. If I want to snorkle, swim, drink beer, and listen to Led Zepplin or the Three Tenors I'm going to do it. Get used to it. It's a public lake.
Now just cause I said I could do the above things doesn't mean I'm going to.
But it's my right if I want to. You can't take it away from me.
Why should I even consider compromise. I'm not interested in the island I just want to toss my anchor in the public lake. As it turns out the calmest place to do these things are in the coves of this public lake.

My comment about the Island's still stands. These Islands are in the middle of Public Property. They should have never been sold in the first place.

[JG1222]

Originally Posted by Sschaar

Why would I want to spend my hard earned money on buying a island when as far as I'm concerned the lake is public, I own it. I've always owned it.

Nobody said you couldn't enjoy the use of the lake within the confines of the privilages (not "rights") afforded to you by the law.

As far as your comment about "owning" the islands because they're in the middle of the public lake - I think you've done a pretty good job confirming what, until a only a few moments ago, we could only surmise about your position, your logic, and the type of person you are.

That being said, I'll look forward to two things... First, I look forward to your sure-to-be emotionally driven and illogical response to my post. And second, I'll look forward to seeing you at your house this Saturday around 2:00 to enjoy your pool and your backyard. After all, "why would I want to spend my hard earned money on buying" a pool when you have one. And since your house IS in the middle of the publicly owned town...

[Sschaar]

I surrender.
Your **** problem will never go away and unlike skip I'm not willing to keep wasting my time trying to explain it to you. I just hope everytime you look out the window and see boats swinging on anchor in your backyard, your blood pressure gets higher. Who knows maybe it will even ruin your day.

[Bear Islander]

All this legal talk is fun. But if you want a practical solution turn your stereo speakers toward the water, turn up the volume and put on a CD of bad music and hit "repeat".

I recommend "Pennsylvania Polka" or "Chick Dance" but that "It's a small world" tune from Disney World is a good choice.

They will up anchor by the third repeat.

[Belmont Resident]

When I inquired at the MP office I was informed that the rule of thumb is:
If your feet are wet your legal, if they are dry then you are trespassing.

[Skip]

I could not find the story in their on-line edition, but if you can get your hands on today's (August 27, 2004) edition of the Manchester Union Leader please turn to page B8 of the State & Local section. The weekly "A Question of Law" column, published in conjunction with the New Hampshire Bar Association, responds to a reader's question of:

Question: I own a vacation home with shorefront property on a New Hampshire Lake. Frequently, people fish, anchor their boat, swim, wade or moor their boat in the waterright in front of my property. I view this as my yard. Are people allowed to be so close to my shoreline?

A very informative response explaining the law is then given by Sgt. Crystal McLain of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol (good job, Sgt. McLain).

In closing, the article also reaffirms the Marine Patrols request that you call them at 603-293-2037 for any of your questions on boating laws and regulations.

Its very good reading if you can find it.....

[ghoti]

I'm out of the area today so can't buy a Union Leader. Couldn't find anything on their website about this either. If someone who has the paper could post the answer, it would be much appreciated!

Thanks, and have a great weekend. I hear the weather has been great this week.