[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

...The senators asked both sides of the issue if there could be a compromise. Neither side offered any...codeman671 started a great thread...Could there be speed limits on certain areas of the lake instead of the whole thing?...Is compromise out of the question?
Sincerely,
RG

Rattlesnake Gal, you have posed a great question.

And the answer is yes, compromise is easily available, and a workable solution has always been right in front of anyone who is seriously interested in safety and reaching a compromise that would be fair and equitable to all.

It is found in RSA 270:12 (I), which I reprint in its entirety at the end of this post.

What RSA 270:12 does is allow residents to petition the Department of Safety to restrict speeds, horsepower, or prohibits motorized use alltogether after an applicable public hearing process.

This is basically the same process that has been used successfully over many years to limit speeds, horsepower or motorized use on over 80 bodies of water in New Hampshire.

In the case of Winnipesaukee, petitioners would need to find 25 signers in each bordering community to restirct speeds lakewide, or find 25 petitioners in each bordering (and affected community) to limit speeds in particular sections of the big Lake. Likewise, abutting communities on other public bodies of water could do the same.

The caveat? You have to convince the Safety Commissioner (and his staff) that yours is a reasonable request that can be enforced fairly. This process was put in to effect many years ago to take the politics out of lake restrictions as the decisions are made by appointed and career professionals and not by politicians. It is basically a mirror image of how speed limit laws are ammended for our roadways.

It forces the petitioners to work with law enforcement on the determination & setting of reasonable restrictions. It makes people think, have reasonable cause and come to a compromised solution after a public hearing is held locally for any and all proposed resticted areas.

To me, it doesn't get any fairer than that!

I had intended to speak to this very issue Friday, but I'll just leave it at "certain people did not want this subject brought up". Therefore, I will broach this compromise solution on my own, not as any part of an organized group, to the Senate. And I encourage anyone else agreeing with my position to copy from or improve upon my suggestions here.

After listening for many months to both sides of the issue, do I believe additional restrictions (speed/horsepower) are necessary on certain portions of Winnipesaukee (and other bodies of water in the State)? I certainly do.

Do I believe that a one sized solution for Winnipesaukee or the entire State is appropriate? No.

Do I believe that the solutions we look for require all parties to sit down an hammer out compromises with the Safety Department that will ensure fair legislation that can be equally enforced across the entire State? Of course.

Will the process require time, energy and an honest committment of effort by all parties truly professing an overall goal of better boating safety? Obviously.

The "scorched earth" approach currently dictated in HB 162 is not a wise process in which to govern the people.

A reasonable and workable alternative already on the books has proven its effectiveness for many years.

You know, sometimes the answers we are looking for are truly right under our noses.

RSA 270:12, with applicable passages highlighted in red:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Administration and Enforcement
Section 270:12
270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules under RSA 541-A governing the maximum horsepower of boat engines and outboard motors or prescribe maximum speed limits for the operation of such boats or outboard motors applicable to or upon all or any portion of the public waters of this state. The commissioner of safety shall, in like manner and after notice and hearing, prohibit the use of motorboats and outboard motors on bodies of public water having an area of 35 acres or less; provided, that said prohibition shall not be construed as affecting the bodies of water covered by RSA 270:75-109. Hearings under this section shall be held in the vicinity of the body of water under consideration during the months of June, July, August and September following the date of the petition.
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 270:12, I, any hearings regarding the closing or restricting of any body of water to seaplanes shall be addressed to and heard by the commissioner of safety or his designee. Prior to issuing a decision, the commissioner shall consult with the director of aeronautics, rail, and transit, department of transportation.