Lake laws

[Rayhunt]

I really wish more folks would learn the laws pertaining to waterfront rights etc.. Twice so far this year we have been harassed by island folks who think that you must anchor/swim 150 feet from shore. First let me say that these were uninhabited stretches of shore front. Common courtesy would never let me anchor in front of any one's home.
The law states the high water mark is state property!
Its getting ridiculous how territorial people can be . Coming from the other side of an island , half a mile away to yell and scream 150 feet ..its wrong and RUDE ! From now on i will be standing my ground and ill let marine patrol and possibly the state police settle it.

[Bear Islander]

While I agree that sounds rude, and may not be legal, waterfront property owners do have more rights than other citizens to the waters adjacent to their property. NH Supreme Court decisions show that waterfront property owners have some common law rights to to these waters. That the state owns the lake is not the point.

http://bearisland.org/legal.htm

I know many boaters bristle at this idea but look at it this way. A waterfront property owner can construct a dock, put out a swim line, install a water intake, drop a mooring or float a swim raft in the water next to their property, but nobody else can. This shows they have more rights to that water than anyone else.

There was also a new rafting law that addressed this but I don't know if it passed or exactly what it said.

[RamJet]

So is it legal or illegal to anchor a boat within 150 feet of land?

[Bear Islander]

I looked it up. The bill I mentioned to was NOT passed. However the rule below is in effect.

If you are not anchoring overnight and you are not in a no rafting zone then it seems legal.

In a no rafting zone even a single boat is illegal if it is stationary.

PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES
(a) In addition to and in conjunction with the requirements of RSA 270:44, no person, except as otherwise provided herein, shall, in a prohibited location or at a prohibited time:
(1) Form or allow a boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft consisting of 3 or more boats;
(2) Form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:
a. Less than 150 feet from shore; or
b. Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or
c. Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond; and
(3) Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond other than momentarily if any part of such boat is:
a. Less than 150 feet from shore; or
b. Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or
c. Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you are not anchoring overnight and you are not in a no rafting zone then it seems legal.

It not only seems legal, but IS entirely legal (depending on what your definition of IS is).

[Onshore]

Riparian owners do have certain rights on a waterbody that no-owners do not enjoy such as the right to build a pier, however those rights are not absolute. Impacts to, or encroachment upon public waters by riparian owners must be reasonable and must not interfere with, or be contrary to, the interests of the public. No shorefront owner may tell an individiual that they cannot boat, swim, fish, or utilize a portion of the lake (public water) regardless of proximity to their dock or shoreline. Please keep in mind that the boater, swimmer,...non-owner using the lake must also be reasonable in their use or behavior.

[fatlazyless]

Is this about Timber Island?

[Rayhunt]

As I stated in my post , im not talking about private land owners , nor would i ever anchor in front of someones camp/dock waterline etc.. I grew up on the water and have way more common courtesy to ever do that.. However several times over the past couple years I have seen people who think they own all the waterfront , including the water out 150 feet or more..
Timber is a good example.. I had been swimming off timber for roughly 35 years. Until a year ago when one person who bought a lot on the south side decided they are the owners of the entire island. And thought that screaming profanities from shore would be a good deterrent, now there are huge obnoxious signs and swim ropes that appear to be out beyond the 6 foot of water regulation at any small sandy area..alsoTimber is in cons. trust no privately owned. We dont go there anymore, nor was it the place I was referring to but a good example of GREED !
The RSA's clearly state "The high water mark" as the boundary between privately owned land and state property, "the lake".
There are no restrictions on anchoring distance unless you are in a no rafting zone..
Get over it ..we can all share the lake with equal respect for one another..
Next time this happens I wont leave , and I will let the authorities sort it out !

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

Timber is a good example.. I had been swimming off timber for roughly 35 years. Until a year ago when one person who bought a lot on the south side decided they are the owners of the entire island. And thought that screaming profanities from shore would be a good deterrent, now there are huge obnoxious signs and swim ropes that appear to be out beyond the 6 foot of water regulation at any small sandy area..alsoTimber is in cons. trust no privately owned. We dont go there anymore, nor was it the place I was referring to but a good example of GREED !

A friend of mine owns one of the Timber lots, the one with the new docks on the inner side facing Mark. The large parcel of Timber which encompasses over 120 acres is under a conservation easement through the Lakes Region Conservation Trust however still appears to be owned by a private realty trust. There is 4 parcels on the island (3 building lots and area 4 which is considered the area in conservation) in all and the land in conservation is held in undivided interest equally between the owners. The conservation easement does not appear to grant public access-as a matter of fact it states that no right of access is conveyed to the trust, it appears to have been written to prevent further subdivision and development. I am not a lawyer so I may be misinterpreting this but it seems qute clear.

Chances are the swim lines and signs are located in one of the 3 permitted building lots. The Trust does have the right to post the entire property (in conservation) at will. If it is the lot on the south side chances are they are the majority owner of the island as they bought that parcel as well as the inner lot (although this is subject to use between the other owners). This certainly does not make shouting of profanities ok.

[codeman671]

Check out this link and zoom in on Timber, it shows the ownership:

http://www.mapsonline.net/gilfordnh/

[jrc]

Just save a bunch of typing here are the Timber island threads from two years ago:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...=6355#poststop

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...=7909#poststop

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by codeman671

A friend of mine owns one of the Timber lots, the one with the new docks on the inner side facing Mark. The large parcel of Timber which encompasses over 120 acres is under a conservation easement through the Lakes Region Conservation Trust however still appears to be owned by a private realty trust. There is 4 parcels on the island (3 building lots and area 4 which is considered the area in conservation) in all and the land in conservation is held in undivided interest equally between the owners. The conservation easement does not appear to grant public access-as a matter of fact it states that no right of access is conveyed to the trust, it appears to have been written to prevent further subdivision and development. I am not a lawyer so I may be misinterpreting this but it seems qute clear.

Chances are the swim lines and signs are located in one of the 3 permitted building lots. The Trust does have the right to post the entire property (in conservation) at will. If it is the lot on the south side chances are they are the majority owner of the island as they bought that parcel as well as the inner lot (although this is subject to use between the other owners). This certainly does not make shouting of profanities ok.

I know this issue has been beat to death .. And all the technical legal issues about the island trust put aside.
THE LAKE IS STATE PROPERTY...
The fact that anyone would walk some distance from there dwelling to try and scare people off who are recreating smacks of greed and ignorance. Theres plenty of room out there if we can agree to be civil and realize the world does not revolve around oneself.
I agree 100% that loitering in front of anyones residence is totally inconsiderate and I would not condone it.
But the law is the law and the next time someone attempts to intimidate us from being "NEAR" the shore ..I will wait for the authorities to come and enlighten them !

[Bear Islander]

Rayhunt

While I agree with much of what you say I think you are wrong about a few things. Swim lines do not have a 6 ft regulation. All swim lines must be approved by the Department of Safety and they can be placed anywhere the permit allows. If you were within a swim line you were the one breaking the law.

Yes, the lake belongs to the State. The bathroom in the Governors office at the Statehouse also belongs to the state. That doesn't mean you can stop by and use it.

A conservation easement does not mean public property. Land with a conservation easement can still be private property. It is just a legal device to prevent certain types of future development.

If the situation arises again I think you should call the Marine Patrol. An officer can stop by and tell you both who is right and who is wrong.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

... All swim lines must be approved by the Department of Safety and they can be placed anywhere the permit allows. If you were within a swim line you were the one breaking the law....

The purpose of an approved swim line is to give a highly visible barrier to prevent hazardous boat traffic from encroching on a designated swim area. That said, any individual can enter the area of the swim line, not just the property owner that erected it. While it may appear tacky to most to do so, the swim line does not designate a property area or act as a no tresspassing zone to non property owners.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

... Yes, the lake belongs to the State. The bathroom in the Governors office at the Statehouse also belongs to the state. That doesn't mean you can stop by and use it...

Not really a very good example. Using the same thought process, would one argue that the evidence locker at the State Police evidence lab, or the small arms locker at one of the State's military armories is open to the public by it's virtue of being owned by the public? Of course not.

The difference is that all great bodies of water can be enjoyed by all as specifically as addressed in State statute. As has been discussed numerous times in the past on this site, RSA 271:20 clearly defines this right that is enjoyed by all citizens of the State.

The water in the Governor's toilet enjoys no such statutory public access.

Skip

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

The purpose of an approved swim line is to give a highly visible barrier to prevent hazardous boat traffic from encroching on a designated swim area. That said, any individual can enter the area of the swim line, not just the property owner that erected it. While it may appear tacky to most to do so, the swim line does not designate a property area or act as a no tresspassing zone to non property owners.

An individual can NOT enter the swim lined area in a BOAT. I should have been more specific, but Rayhunt said he was in a boat.

Not really a very good example. Using the same thought process, would one argue that the evidence locker at the State Police evidence lab, or the small arms locker at one of the State's military armories is open to the public by it's virtue of being owned by the public? Of course not.

The difference is that all great bodies of water can be enjoyed by all as specifically as addressed in State statute. As has been discussed numerous times in the past on this site, RSA 271:20 clearly defines this right that is enjoyed by all citizens of the State.

The water in the Governor's toilet enjoys no such statutory public access.

Skip

RSA 271:20 might seem clear to you, however it is trumped by multiple New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions to the contrary. An example is below. I know from past experience that you don't like this decision, but you should take it up with them, not me.

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

....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)."

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

An individual can NOT enter the swim lined area in a BOAT. I should have been more specific, but Rayhunt said he was in a boat.




RSA 271:20 might seem clear to you, however it is trumped by multiple New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions to the contrary. An example is below. I know from past experience that you don't like this decision, but you should take it up with them, not me.

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

....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)."

Please stop putting words in my mouth ! I have never crossed a swim line in a boat , "ITS ILLEGAL"
A swim line can not be floating in more than six feet of water ,"Thats the law"..

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...RSA 271:20 might seem clear to you, however it is trumped by multiple New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions to the contrary. An example is below. I know from past experience that you don't like this decision, but you should take it up with them, not me.

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

....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)."

Actually I have no problem with either the statute as written nor the Supreme Court cases you cite, as they do not conflict each other. Read the synopsis of the case you cite more carefully, the key phrase in the passage is "and which were not affected by the statute (RSA 271:20)...

The littoral rights often cited by you allow property owners in some cases to build or maintain docks, boathouses, accessory structures, swim rafts & swim lines into or onto the publicly owned waterways in the State, after obtaining the necessary governmental permissions & permits as these littoral rights are by no means absolute rights.. However, the actual waters on which these structures occur remain the property of all. The original post in this thread started by Rayhunt alleged that he was harassed for anchoring within 150' feet of a shoreline. I saw no mention by him that he was anchored within a swimline. Given the facts as stated by him, he was well within his right to be where he was. And as any regular reader of this site may recall, these incidents seem to crop up every year.

I believe the point that Rayhunt was trying to make, and one that I will continue to emphasize, is that by State law the great bodies of water in this State are maintained by and open to use by all citizens. The court cases you cite are not and do not conflict with this philosophy. If indeed the RSA was so fatally flawed, I am sure that one of the Lake's regions legislators would have ammended it appropriately in the decades since the first decision you often cite was handed down.

But again no such legislation has been proposed (or ammended) because the intent of both the RSA and the Courts of this State are, in my humble opinion, abudantly clear and actually reinforce the rights of all to enjoy our public waterways.

Skip

[Tir Na Nog]

As I was signing in, Skip posted a response similar to what I was about to post. The rights of the littoral land owners and those using the lake really are not in conflict and the people themselves tend to come in conflict only when a little common sense and corutesy are not used. As I understand the case, it recognizs certain rights or Littoral land owners, but not in complete derogation of the rights the State has reserved to itself. More than one entity can have rights over the same property, eg, easements. In those instnaces, both have to use those rights so as not to interfere with the rights of others. If a littoral land owners rights to build docks, extend swim lines and such other things were absolute, then the State's permitting process could not be applicable. In any event, even if one feels there rights are being somewhat trodden upon, the best first course is to inform, ask nicely, and see what happens. If you and the other disagree, well then that is why you have law enforcement personnel and courts, so we are not out there throwing rocks at each other (either figuratively or literally). Let's all just enjoy the final arrival of summer.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Rayhunt

While I agree with much of what you say I think you are wrong about a few things. Swim lines do not have a 6 ft regulation...

Rayhunt was correct, swim lines regulations do indeed have a six foot depth or 50 foot from shoreline regulation, only allowing an exception by special request (Saf-C 404.08(h)4).

To help settle the apparent confusion I have attached the applicable Administrative Rules on swim lines, highlighting Rayhunt's correct claim in red:



Saf-C 404.08 Swim Lines.



(a) No person 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) An application for a swim line permit, DSSS 41, shall be submitted to the director by the shore front property owner, or a duly authorized agent.



(d) The following shall be submitted on the application for a swim line permit, DSSS 41:



(1) Name, address and telephone number of the property owner;



(2) Name, address and telephone number of the authorized agent for the property owner, if applicable;



(3) Address of shore front propertty;



(4) Name of the body of water;



(5) Lot number and tax map number of the shore front property;



(6) Name and address of abutters;



(7) Type of swim area, such as:



a. Private or individual swim area;



b. Town or state owned swim area;



c. Private group or association swim area; and



(8) If a waiver is requested, a statement of need with description of water depth and distance from shore.



(e) An application for a swim permit, DSSS 41, shall be signed and dated by the property owner or duly authorized agent.



(f) A diagram of the swim area shall be attached to the application for a swim permit, DSSS 41.



(g) The diagram referenced in (f) above shall:



(1) Be accurate in relation to north and shall contain the following:



a. Shore line and property line of applicant in feet;



b. Proposed location and length of swim lines;



c. Water depth in feet at furthest point of swim line;



d. Locations, dimensions and distance in feet to moorings, docks, or swim rafts located off the applicant’s shore frontage; and



e. Abutter’s shore frontages, and location, dimensions and distance in feet, to moorings, docks, swim rafts or swim lines, located within 200 feet of applicant’s shore frontage.



(h) No swim line shall be approved which:



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



(2) Is placed closer than 20 feet from abutter property lines;



(3) Has an open-sided configuration which would permit boats to enter the swim area;



(4) 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



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



(i) Written requests for a waiver of the restrictions imposed in paragraph (i) above shall be submitted to the director on the application form, DSSS 41. The reason the request is submitted detailing specific water depth and distance from shore shall be included.



(j) After receipt of a request for a waiver in conformance with (j) 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. The conditions of the waiver shall appear on the swim line permit when issued.



(k) A swim line permit shall be issued on an annual basis.

[Bear Islander]

Skip

Why make it sound like we disagree when we don't?

Like I said, a swim line can be placed anywhere the permit says it can. I received my first swim line permit in 1974 and it was placed 200' from shore in about 25' of water.

[Rayhunt]

Heres a nice idea A quote from Bearislander

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.

[Bear Islander]

I stand by that quote.

Most of these problems would be best resolved, as many have said, with common courtesy and good judgment. But if somebody wants exercise their right to anchor a few feet from my dock all day, I might exercise my right to play bad music.

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I stand by that quote.

Most of these problems would be best resolved, as many have said, with common courtesy and good judgment. But if somebody wants exercise their right to anchor a few feet from my dock all day, I might exercise my right to play bad music.

Your way off track here.. I consider myself lucky to have spent 40 years on the shores of Winni and only wish others could have the feeling I get on a beautiful day swimming boating and enjoying the scenery...
Then there are the territorial part time visitors who will share with noone as they think its their private sanctuary for the weekend.
I live year round on the lake and its a different world most of the time (quiet). But when summer comes and the weekends are busy, I dint try intimidate people away from my imaginary area that stretches out into the lake, its wrong, illegal and just rude ! Even though I would never do it , I like my elbow room too.
We've been luck so far this weekend we went to one of our favorite spots and anchored , snorkeled and played frisbee without a single crazed lunatic running out of the bushes screaming.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I looked it up. The bill I mentioned to was NOT passed. However the rule below is in effect.

If you are not anchoring overnight and you are not in a no rafting zone then it seems legal.

In those areas (not to block a nav channel) you can anchor close to shore and you can have a raft of boats.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In a no rafting zone even a single boat is illegal if it is stationary.

PART Saf-C 407 RAFTING RULES{snip}
(2) Form or allow the boat which he or she is operating or in charge of to be a member of a raft if any part of such raft is:
a. Less than 150 feet from shore; or
b. Less than 50 feet from any other raft; or
c. Less than 50 feet from any occupied single boat which is stationary upon the waters of the same lake or pond; and
(3) Anchor a single boat and cause it to remain stationary upon the waters of a lake or pond other than momentarily if any part of such boat is:
a. Less than 150 feet from shore; or
b. Less than 50 feet away from any raft; or
c. Less than 25 feet away from any other single boat which is stationary upon the waters of such lake or pond.

This is accurate but NOT complete information.

There are specific conditions for certain No Rafting Zones. For instance, you can anchor 75' from shore in the Braun Bay NRZ. The distance "should" be marked with orange mooring balls (saw one sitting on the bottom last season).
I've had differences of opinion about the anchoring rules with some MP officers over the last few years. As Skip mentioned in another thread - even those who try to keep current with the rules find them to be overly complicated and confusing.

Saf-C 407.03 Prohibited Areas.

(a) Rafting as defined in RSA 270:42, V, shall be prohibited in the following areas of Lake Winnipesaukee unless covered by one of the exceptions specified in RSA 270:45:

(1) The Kona Mansion, so-called, in Moultonborough, east of an imaginary line running north and south from the red top mark buoy located on the western tip of Avery's Point on the south to the Kona Farm gas docks on the north;

(2) Small's Cove in Alton, southwest of an imaginary line running southeast-northwest from light 75 on the northwestern end to the northernmost point of land marking the entrance to the first cove, south of Small's Cove on the south;

(3) Wentworth Cove, southwest of Governor's Island Bridge west of an imaginary north-south line, running from light 43 on the north to the black top buoy, located off Wentworth Cove Estates on the south;

(4) Braun Bay, within 300 feet of both fish and game property lines, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;

(5) Braun Bay, at a distance less than 75 feet from shore, to be delineated by marine patrol with orange mooring balls;

(6) The area known as Cedar Cove, specifically identified as the area opposite Plum Island which borders the town of Alton tax map 18, lot numbers 12 through 20 and 55;

(7) The area of Winter Harbor from the southern boundary of the town of Tuftonboro tax map 63, lot number 14 to the southern boundary of tax map 15, lot number 20.

(8) The entire area known as Green’s Basin, in the town of Moultonborough;

(9) Orchard Cove, on the east side of Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro;

(10) The entire area known as Buzzell Cove, in the town of Moultonborough;

(11) Brickyard Cove, encompassing a described area that would run south of an imaginary line running about 2,300 feet from the northern tip of Clay Point to the southern tip of Barndoor Island; and

(12) The entire area known as Black Cove, in the town of Meredith, encompassing an area in Meredith tax map S-7, east from the northern most point of Lot 5-1 to the southeastern most point of Lot 1.

When in doubt, call Marine Patrol (and take names)....

[northforty]

Can anyone share or direct me to information about how no rafting zones get established or created in the first place?

Many thanks!

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by northforty

Can anyone share or direct me to information about how no rafting zones get established or created in the first place?

Many thanks!

your not going to try are you because property owners aren't the only ones that enjoy the lake.

Property owners....YOU DON'T OWN THE WATER!!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by northforty

Can anyone share or direct me to information about how no rafting zones get established or created in the first place?

Many thanks!

The best way to have a no rafting zone established is to go to a nice area of the lake with few of your friends and have fun. Eventually someone will notice you and pass a law against it.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by jrc

The best way to have a no rafting zone established is to go to a nice area of the lake with few of your friends and have fun. Eventually someone will notice you and pass a law against it.

It might depend on what a definition of "Fun" is. At least one skiboat repeatedly passes us by with a stereo that will rattle the dishes.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

It might depend on what a definition of "Fun" is...

That's exactly the issue, we all have different views of what's "fun". With 6,629,399,777 people on this earth, were bound to run it a few who's idea of fun is annoying to us.

[cabinfever]

Please note that Timber Island in its entirety is privately owned by 3 families. Each has their own parcels on the island, and they jointly own the balance. The LRCT has only an easement on one section of the island with the goal of "protecting and maintaining its natural beauty in perpetuity." Building is not allowed on only this one portion of the island, but the 3 families have full use and ownership of it otherwise. The original owners of the island set up the easement w/ the LRCT in the 70s to protect it. The current owners all signed on as the new stewards of the island when they made their purchases. The 24-page easement clearly prohibits public use. The owners replaced the old signs under the direction of the LRCT's attorneys, private attorneys, and marine patrol to alert the public to the island's long-time restrictions in the hopes of avoiding further property damage. The owners also received variances and approval to reinstitute some of the swim lines that were around the island years ago to enable swimming that was nearly impossible with so many boats closely anchored or beached on the shoreline. Sad to say, the rope swing in the West cove needed to be removed for legal reasons.

If anyone has questions about Timber, please feel free to private message me. As one of the owners, I'm happy to try to answer any questions.