New Bill---Fees for Anchored Seasonal Platforms on waters

[tummyman]

Looks like even local State Reps want to fleece waterfront property owners more.......Shame on them !!



26-2915
06/08

HOUSE BILL 1477-FN

AN ACT relative to the permitting and regulation of anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters.

SPONSORS: Rep. J. MacDonald, Carr. 6; Rep. Crawford, Carr. 3; Rep. Damon, Sull. 8; Rep. Darby, Hills. 11; Rep. Ebel, Merr. 7; Rep. Hamblen, Carr. 3; Rep. Rung, Hills. 12; Rep. Walker, Straf. 19

COMMITTEE: Resources, Recreation and Development

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS

This bill restricts anchored seasonal platforms on public waters to adjacent shorefront property owners, requires permits with identification and a $50 fee, exempts certain government and conservation uses, and imposes fines for noncompliance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
26-2915
06/08

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Six

AN ACT relative to the permitting and regulation of anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. Amend RSA 270:72-c, I-III to read as follows:
I. As defined in RSA 270:72-b, I, no person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform as provided in this subdivision and in accordance with rules established under RSA 270:72-g shall obtain an anchored seasonal platform permit from the division of state police, marine patrol. The cost of the permit shall be $50 dollars, $25 shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a and $25 shall be deposited into the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.
III. Seasonal platforms installed on public waters that support a local, state, or federal government agency, an agency's sub-contractors, or a conservation group engaged in the non-recreational activities may be installed provided the platform meets the minimum requirements established in RSA 270:72-d and shall be exempted from paragraph II.
IV. Any person failing to obtain an anchored seasonal platform permit shall be fined $100 plus a 20 percent penalty assessment.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBA
26-2915
11/30/25

[tummyman]

By some of the same legislators...

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Six

AN ACT increasing certain mooring fees and directing such funds to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Decal Issuance; Mooring Fee; Cyanobacteria Fund. Amend RSA 270:62, V to read as follows:
V. A fee of $125 shall be charged for each initial decal issued pursuant to this subdivision which shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a. An annual mooring fee of $50 for each mooring in a congregate mooring field and [$25] $50 for each mooring not in a congregate mooring field shall be charged for each decal renewed or replaced pursuant to this subdivision which shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a and $25 shall be deposited into the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund established under RSA 485-A:61.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026.

[FlyingScot]

I understand the motivation to generate revenue, and I don't really blame them (too much). But $50 is BS. They will spend that on the admin

[tis]

I guess it never stops. They will never have enough money. Let's just hope all these bills die a quick death.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I understand the motivation to generate revenue, and I don't really blame them (too much). But $50 is BS. They will spend that on the admin

I can't remember correctly the court case, but I believe that a fee can only be used for the purposes stated in the statute, and must go toward value to those paying the fee.

Other than that the court holds it to be a tax.

The property things are about revenue.
As there are other bills introduced that reduce the property taxes at the State level, but increase the business taxes.

NH ranks 44th (1 being best) in corporate taxation.

So as it stands, it makes more sense to reside here and invest in production in other States - all other things being equal.

They do have a slight lowering of the BET that has passed the House; and two other bills in that would simply repeal the BET and BPT tax laws that are currently in committee.
It has taken ten years to move the BPT down from 8.5 to 7.5, and we really need to be at 6.0 or less to be even remotely competitive.

It takes that low a rate to make up for the additional energy and transportation costs, and now a cost of labor as manufacturers have to compete for top talent.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I can't remember correctly the court case, but I believe that a fee can only be used for the purposes stated in the statute, and must go toward value to those paying the fee.

Other than that the court holds it to be a tax.

The property things are about revenue.
As there are other bills introduced that reduce the property taxes at the State level, but increase the business taxes.

NH ranks 44th (1 being best) in corporate taxation.

So as it stands, it makes more sense to reside here and invest in production in other States - all other things being equal.

They do have a slight lowering of the BET that has passed the House; and two other bills in that would simply repeal the BET and BPT tax laws that are currently in committee.
It has taken ten years to move the BPT down from 8.5 to 7.5, and we really need to be at 6.0 or less to be even remotely competitive.

It takes that low a rate to make up for the additional energy and transportation costs, and now a cost of labor as manufacturers have to compete for top talent.

It's not the money I mind it's the inefficient use of money that irks me. They are using most of the $50 to collect the $50. I would rather they charge me (and everybody else) $500, and put >90% toward protecting the lake that my raft and dock are sitting on.

Also, when you say "it makes more sense to reside here...". If you live in Mass, like the plurality(?) of out of state owners, your reasons for living in Mass are likely a lot bigger than a few thousand dollars/year in tax savings. If it was easy to escape Mass income taxes with a few forms filled out, we'd all be doing it

[BillTex]

Is this a proposed bill or has it passed?

[John Mercier]

In the RRD committee, public hearing on January 14th at 2:30

Though it is an interesting concept that I have never thought of before.

I could anchor a swim platform in front of your lakefront home due to the fact that the lake it public waters.

I wonder who figured that out for this to be brought to a legislator's attention.

[Bear Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

...
Though it is an interesting concept that I have never thought of before.

I could anchor a swim platform in front of your lakefront home due to the fact that the lake it public waters.
....

Don't existing RSAs prohibit you from doing this? I see online content that says you must the adjacent landowner to put a swim raft on public waters, that you must do so without reasonably interfering other's use of the water, and do it environmentally responsibly (and that the requirement of putting your contact info on a swim raft exists too).


270:72-c Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. –
I. No person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Bear Guy

Don't existing RSAs prohibit you from doing this? I see online content that says you must the adjacent landowner to put a swim raft on public waters, that you must do so without reasonably interfering other's use of the water, and do it environmentally responsibly (and that the requirement of putting your contact info on a swim raft exists too).


270:72-c Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. –
I. No person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform

Makes sense to point that out to the committee with a comment.

I have been in Concord in a committee hearing where anger was focused at me because I opposed a bill. I opposed it because it was already law - the sponsors just didn't know the law.

That section should take care of any problem, and a simple addition that the structure must have owner and contact information on it. No fee should be necessary.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

It's not the money I mind it's the inefficient use of money that irks me. They are using most of the $50 to collect the $50. I would rather they charge me (and everybody else) $500, and put >90% toward protecting the lake that my raft and dock are sitting on.

Also, when you say "it makes more sense to reside here...". If you live in Mass, like the plurality(?) of out of state owners, your reasons for living in Mass are likely a lot bigger than a few thousand dollars/year in tax savings. If it was easy to escape Mass income taxes with a few forms filled out, we'd all be doing it

No for manufacturers.
It makes sense for me to reside here - no income tax - but makes more sense for me to open a manufacturing operation in another State - lower corporate taxes on the operation, and the money sent to me in dividends is tax free in NH. The NH/Mass thing is so over. It was old thinking.
When Samina purchased Hadco in southern NH (Ayotte's area), they closed NH and expanded NY. NY was less expensive to manufacture in than NH.

As for the fee; it is just to cover expenses, not create extra.
I think they may have looked at a loophole in who could anchor in front of a lake property.
It may be that one, or all, of the sponsors have lakefront property and this came up in a conversation.

[Descant]

Some of this appears to be modelled after the registration of moorings, but moorings are not regulated on all lakes, just big ones, I believe. Every so often on this forum we see postings for swim rafts that have broken loose and have no contact or othe ID info. It would be herlpful to have that required. We won't see platform fields the way we see mooring fields, so I'd guess the number of platforms really isn't enough to be a money maker.

[SAB1]

You used to have to file a form with the State to put a raft in. It was required to have owners name and contact info on the raft. They did away with that filing process several years ago. They still require a filing a swim line.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

Some of this appears to be modelled after the registration of moorings, but moorings are not regulated on all lakes, just big ones, I believe. Every so often on this forum we see postings for swim rafts that have broken loose and have no contact or othe ID info. It would be herlpful to have that required. We won't see platform fields the way we see mooring fields, so I'd guess the number of platforms really isn't enough to be a money maker.

Always the issue.
If they really were using this to raise revenue.
The limited number of payees would result in a tax rate that pretty much prevented everyone from having one.
A few very wealthy might, but just a few.

[AC2717]

so I am a little confused? Does this include swim rafts, as well as seasonal docks that are removed? Does it also include permanent docks?

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so I am a little confused? Does this include swim rafts, as well as seasonal docks that are removed? Does it also include permanent docks?

Below is the legal definition. I read it as swim rafts, but not as docks.

270:72-b Definitions. –
In this subdivision:
I. " Anchored seasonal platform " means a seasonal platform, inflatable platform, float, or device attached to such platform, inflatable platform, or float, that is attached by chains, cables, ropes, or related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Riviera

Below is the legal definition. I read it as swim rafts, but not as docks.

270:72-b Definitions. –
In this subdivision:
I. " Anchored seasonal platform " means a seasonal platform, inflatable platform, float, or device attached to such platform, inflatable platform, or float, that is attached by chains, cables, ropes, or related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water.

Thank you for posting this. To me it seems open ended as docks are built the way the seasonal platform is defined above "seasonal platform" - seasonal docks are done the same way and "related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water"

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by AC2717

To me it seems open ended as docks are built the way the seasonal platform is defined above "seasonal platform" - seasonal docks are done the same way

I agree it’s not well worded. That said, I think you are reading too much into it. I think the “related equipment” is intended to mean “related” to ropes, chains, and/or cables. (Such as swivels or hooks). If it was intended to capture seasonal docks, I suspect the word “dock” would appear in there.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Riviera

I agree it’s not well worded. That said, I think you are reading too much into it. I think the “related equipment” is intended to mean “related” to ropes, chains, and/or cables. (Such as swivels or hooks). If it was intended to capture seasonal docks, I suspect the word “dock” would appear in there.

I agree that I am reading too much into it, one thing with me when it comes to govenrment laws and legal forms, if its not specifically excluded it is included, regardless of intent of meaning. seasonal docks are "anchored" into the lake bottom with thier posts and sometimes cabled, year round docks such as the one I am on has driven pylons that are the anchors into the lake bed for stability and rigidity.

mostly because of my job as an insurance agent lol.

[retired]

And what problem does this legislation solve?

[John Mercier]

Doesn't seem to be anything.
Someone posted a statute already exists for some of it.

[BillTex]

Originally Posted by retired

And what problem does this legislation solve?

Revenue…thats about it.

[John Mercier]

Not much revenue.

[tummyman]

What problem does it solve????? Well, I think I read in to bill data that it probably adds two more people to the state employee rolls along with health insurance and other benefits that will be offset by the "new" dollars collected. Got to create a problem before you can solve it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

What problem does it solve????? Well, I think I read in to bill data that it probably adds two more people to the state employee rolls along with health insurance and other benefits that will be offset by the "new" dollars collected. Got to create a problem before you can solve it.

Isn't it all just so ridiculous?! I wish they would all stay home and stop thinking up stupid new laws.

[tummyman]

Well, I think I got mislead. In reading various posts, it appeared to me that I needed a permit for my swim raft. So I prepared all the paperwork for a mooring application from the Marine Patrol. Amounted to over 12 pages. I then drove it down to the Marine patrol Hdqtrs. They reviewed my application but said it was incomplete because I did not provide current registrations for my boat and jet ski. True. But I then tried to get my registration there but needed my expired registration or i could fill out a new form. I opted for the new form approach but halfway through learned I also needed my hull number. Obviously I don't carry that in my wallet, so I abandoned the effort. Upon returning home, I got the registration paperwork and headed to town hall and registered the watercraft. I figured i now was fully prepared for a repeat visit that I made this afternoon. As the agent reviewed my application, I indicated it seemed like a lot of work for a raft. He said...a raft????? Yes, a raft. He then said I didn't need any permit as swim rafts are not regulated!!!!!!!! The mooring permit is for a boat mooring with a ball on the top of the water. Damn !!! As I learned the hard way, all this legislation is about boat moorings to begin with and apparently NOT swim rafts. In relooking at the original postings and bill drafts, I now see that swim rafts are NOT specifically included. So make your own assumptions. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Mercier]

The Bill in discussion is not law at the current time.
It hasn't even had one vote in a full chamber.

[tummyman]

Went on-line today to get the form required for a raft/mooring. Incredible amount of data. Maps, plot plans, deeds, copies of current boat registrations, abutters list, water depth, data on docks, dock permits, all sorts of measurements, etc. etc. for a swim raft. 12 pages of information. We shall see if I pass....I doubt it. Only thing they didn't ask for was a water sample or test. Wanted to know how deep the water is. Well, didn't say whether it is at full pond or low tide so I had to guess. Nothing like drowning in paperwork but it is a way to justify more people.

[BillTex]

Jan 14 has passed. Did this get written into law or postponed?

[John Mercier]

The 14th was just a public hearing in the House Committee.
They haven't realized the Executive Hearing details as to the committee's recommendation.

So it is still in the very early stages.