[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Skip:

I anxiously await Madrasah's posting of the particular statute or case law...

We had a TRIPLE power surge and outage last evening. My lawyerly discourse got erased mid-preview.

Probably it's that "It's that Ossipee Station problem" story, again.

(A McMansion across the lake automatically lit up its emergency lighting -- with dozens of those really bright night-time highway repair lights -- during the blackout).

Anyway, sorry for the delay.

Originally Posted by Skip: "...there is a statute defining public use for shorelines in reference to tidal waters in New Hampshire along the coast, but not pertaining to inland non-tidal fresh water bodies. I attach that particular RSA below.

Nothing pertains to inland lakes? ***

Originally Posted by Skip:
TITLE L
WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 483-C
PUBLIC USE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL SHORELANDS
Section 483-C:1
483-C:1 Public Use of Coastal Shorelands... –
I. It is the purpose of the general court in this section to recognize and confirm the historical practice and common law right of the public to enjoy the greatest portion of New Hampshire coastal shoreland, in accordance with the public trust doctrine subject to those littoral rights recognized at common law.

*** "Littoral" (Webster) pertains to seas, oceans, and lakes (!) So has "the common law" rights of citizens been completely addressed for inland lakes? It's not in the above RSA.

It is well established that the citizens may use the surface waters of the lake (for better or worse ); however, the lake waters do not stop at the shoreline (except at sandy shorelines).

The water's edge extends far under the topsoil and tree roots, where it has established its "high-water mark" under my sundeck.

How do I know? Decades ago, I searched for a dropped article and peeked through an opening in the ground. Just below my sundeck, there was water -- the late-April high water mark of a Winnipesaukee snowmelt. It was subject to slight movements from large boat wakes.

Again, peeking back from in the lake, anyone can see that Winnipesaukee's high-water mark has eroded the soil and created large chasms. The chasm roof is supported by tree roots. (Chipmunks race through these chasms, avoiding predators, and I've heard baby birds chirping for Momma bird from under there).

Tree roots hold the shoreline over the lake. Most of Winnipesaukee's steep and rocky shoreline appears to be similar to mine, including most of those larger islands with steep inclines.

(Spring rains cause topsoil from higher areas, muddying this lake margin -- but that's subsidence -- another story).

New Hampshire seems to have forgotten "the lake part" in accordance with the public trust doctrine subject to those littoral rights recognized at common law."

In my opinion, the "high-water line" extends underneath much of Winnipesaukee's shoreline -- about where my boundary stakes are, about 15-20 feet from the lake.

Why doesn't Common Law apply to the public's right to walk their dogs on land that is over Lake Winnipesaukee's high-water mark -- waters to which they are fully entitled ?

It does in other states...does New Hampshire Law fail to address this? It appears unaddressed, but I see it as neglected. They have used the term "high-water mark" with regard to lakes -- and allowed a roughly 10-foot shoreline margin for the public's use -- "designated" through neglect.

Could one lawyer's interpretation of "littoral" and "Common Law" mean the public should be able to walk their dog on land that is over a lake's high-water mark? I think it could. (It doesn't mean I like it).




.