AQUATHERMS - Rights, Safety and Water Quality

[fatlazyless]

Instead of getting all lawyered up over this....maybe just pull your neighbor's plug that powers up the circulator and attach a friendly "hey neighbor" note suggesting they install a time/temp controller so's the water opening in the ice will be much much smaller???

[Merrymeeting]

As stated earlier, it would be a slippery slope to prove. But I've increasingly wondered about the environmental impact of all these "bubblers" ( :-), I'm from New England) keeping the shoreline open year round when it used to freeze regularly.

What is the impact on fish and other species who depend on the freeze cycles and undisturbed sandy bottom? What about the spread of invasive species or the fact that they are not killed off by a freeze? Etc...

There may be no impact, and like other environmental issues, would probably be impossible to prove, and more impossible to defend. But I personally wish that they would be banned. With modern raise-style docks, how hard would it be to have a removable dock instead of keeping circulators running att the time?

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

.

There may be no impact, and like other environmental issues, would probably be impossible to prove, and more impossible to defend. But I personally wish that they would be banned. With modern raise-style docks, how hard would it be to have a removable dock instead of keeping circulators running att the time?

The main factor if bubblers were outlawed would be the cost and logistics of manufacturing thousands of docks just for Winnipesaukee alone. Over the last few years I have replaced two of my docks with aluminum docks that raise in the winter. The docks cost approximately $10,000 each. There was a wait of 3 to 9 months just to have them fabricated and installed. For many families that are struggling to hang on to their waterfront homes the cost might be the final nail in the coffin that causes them to have to sell. All of the bubblers on a lake the size of Winnipesaukee could not affect more than 1/8 of 1/2 of 1% of the total lake area so I would think that the environmental impact of bubblers is insignificant. (Math may be questionable)

[tis]

Personally I don't see that bubblers help that much. It is usually when the ice is going out in the spring that you get the winds blowing the ice and that is when most of the damage occurs. I know I have said this before in a past post. Just my opinion.

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by tis

Personally I don't see that bubblers help that much. It is usually when the ice is going out in the spring that you get the winds blowing the ice and that is when most of the damage occurs. I know I have said this before in a past post. Just my opinion.

They actually do help. The pressure of the ice will actually raise the pilings right out of the bottom of the lake. Should there also be a crib section of dock, if the crib freezes the ice will bend and even snap the pins holding the crib together. Bubblers have been around for a long time so I doubt they are goin anywhere. What I cant stand is people like my neighbor that leave there seasonal pipe dock in all winter and throw a bubbler off the end of it and leave it running constantly. Cant even get the snowmobile or ice shak onto the ice there now because its open water.

[pcmc]

The problems inconsiderate people create are some of the most difficult to solve. If they aren't aware that they are inconveniencing you directly nothing will get resolved.
My wife and I have tried using methods called 'Love and Logic' to deal with our children's behaviors. One suggestion deals with how kids make their problem your problem. The suggestions say to keep the problem the child's and ask them how can they resolve the problem. When they don't know, you offer them two ways to resolve it that YOU will be satisfied with either out come.

I realize this isn't quite the same thing but my point is at least inform the party creating the problem and ask them what can they do so the safety of the ice isn't compromised in front of your property where you would like to venture out on the lake. Probably not likely to get any where, but worth a try.

I'm not sure exactly what a bubbler is, I'm imagining a sump pump with a 1 1/2" pipe outlet, blowing water around from the bottom, (warmer) so it won't freeze. If the flow of water was brought closer to the surface via a longer pipe, maybe a foot or so below the surface, so it disturbed the water more specific to the area of the pipe, would this relieve the current that travels from the depths and along the neighboring shore line and creating the large open area? Maybe a larger diameter pipe can be fabricated to levitate the presure on the flowing water, lessening the current it creates? Probably not practical, but what if a fabric or material with weights on the bottom, was draped off the dock with the bubbler, creating a curtain around the dock and slowing the drifting current, would this help stop the melting of the ice beyond its intent??

[HarborSide CHBay]

Wow, quite a few replies.

pcmc
The problems inconsiderate people create are some of the most difficult to solve. If they aren't aware that they are inconveniencing you directly nothing will get resolved.

Agreed.

Of note, we've emailed and personally communicated with the direct abutters many times since 2010. So, they aren't unaware. When apprised of the safety risks and other results, they simply indicated they were going to keep them on 24/7 as they didn't want to lose their dock to the ice. I provided material on education on the matter, but it just didn't matter.

I haven't continued to harp on the issue as it doesn't result in any change to the winter dock deicers. Also, as 25+ year abutters, we've worked really well on most other matters and (with a single exception) the people in the small association abutters are genuinely decent and considerate and enjoy the lake with their families.

Deicers are also necessary to protect the docks. Operated appropriately, and I strongly recommend a qualified professional contractor, they have minimal impact on the surrounding water. It is the wanton, inappropriate operation is the issue, as the risk has to be retributed back to the owner and operator from the harmed parties "in order to compel appropriate operation."

So, I looked at it again this year when one added a 2nd diecer (these are propeller units, motor inside a large white PCV suspended by ropes). MY PURPOSE is not for my benefit at all, I am not seeking currently to access the lake. MY PURPOSE is, when even reasonable people don't make good decisions, to find out what can be done to PROTECT; others and ourselves.

Others ~ from (1) a low perspective of the public right to recreate on the lake to (2) a high of to do so without the risk of harm and even death. We view the bay out of our windows every day and we are aware of the open water and the potential for weakened ice everywhere which way from each. OTHERS that go on the lake without this knowledge don't know; especially if there is recent snow. Whether it is ice fisherman, skaters/snowshoers/XX skiers, second homeowners coming up for a weekend or snowmobilers, they don't know.

I can't legislate or enforce, so I want to put the issue before state and local governance and safety/law enforcement.

Ourselves ~ If, or when, someone gets hurt or worse, we ARE NOT going to allow ourselves to even remotely be RESPONSIBLE. I've got my deicers unplugged, and have for years.

In really cold spells like now, I have no ice at all 80' out. In regular winters, I can sometimes have enough water to dock my Formula 280SS and several properties. If you look at some of the earlier pictures, in warmer time periods, hundreds of feet of shoreline were open hundreds of feet out into the lake.

Next

I'm gathering the information referred to in the first 2013 post to submit to the parties mentioned. Those in governance, and in safety/law enforcement, at the state and local level, are the only ones that can legislate and then enforce.

The following post is a narrative of what seems to be the 'trending regulations in several states based on the original Muskoka issue.

I'd be interested in comments from all perspectives on if this would work here.

[HarborSide CHBay]

Chapter 294. ICE-RETARDANT SYSTEMS

[HISTORY: Adopted by the Township Council of the Township of Jefferson 11-6-2002 by Ord. No. 28-02 (Ch. 52 of the 1967 Code). Amendments noted where applicable.]

§ 294-1. Purpose.

It is the intent of this chapter to regulate the installation and use of ice-retardant systems on waterfront properties within the Township of Jefferson for the protection of persons and property and to provide for the public health, safety and welfare of the Township of Jefferson and its inhabitants.

§ 294-2. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

AFFECTED AREA OF ICE

The area of the water body or ice surface disturbed by the operation of an ice-retardant system. Said disturbed or affected area includes open water, weakened ice (excessively cracked), thin ice (less than four inches in depth) and areas where adjacent ice is covered by a film of water.

BULKHEAD LINE

The high-water mark of 10.30 feet above the dam as recorded at Lake Hopatcong State Park or the line established by the Bureau of Navigation, State Department of Environmental Protection, defining the lake's permanent shoreline.

ICE-RETARDANT SYSTEM

A mechanical device(s) or a series of mechanical devices designed to retard or prevent the formation of ice in or around lakefront structures. Said devices utilize as their mode of operation one or more of the following mechanisms: pumped air, artificial water turbulence or the addition of heat to the water body.

NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS

The average winter conditions to be utilized in the design or operation of an ice-retardant system and to be utilized in gauging compliance with the terms of this chapter. Said "normal operating conditions" are defined as an average of four or more inches of ice on the applicable water body. Such term excludes any time period characterized by unseasonably warm temperature (average daily temperature above 40° F. for three or more consecutive days) or rainfall (greater than 1/2 inch of rainfall per day) and the three days immediately thereafter. In any enforcement action under the terms of this chapter, the burden is on the operator of the ice-retardant system to establish that normal operating conditions were not existent on the date of the alleged violation.

OWNER or OPERATOR

The owner of record of a tract of land according to the tax rolls of the Township of Jefferson or any person occupying said premises or utilizing the property.

PERSON

Any individual, association of individuals, corporation or partnership.

PROTECTED STRUCTURE

Any lakefront or within lake structure which the ice-retardant system is designed to protect. Such protected structures include but are not limited to docks, piers, bulkheads, catwalks, seawalls and boathouses.

§ 294-3. Authorization for use; compliance required.

A. No person shall operate an ice-retardant system within the municipal limits of the Township of Jefferson unless said operation is in conformance with this chapter.

B. The provisions of this chapter shall only be effective for the operation of an ice-retardant system from December 1 of each year through April 1 of the following year. Nothing herein shall prevent the operation of an ice-retardant system at other times during the year.

§ 294-4. Operation requirements.

A. All ice-retardant systems shall be marked with an appropriate sign placed along the shore or on the protected structure specifying "Danger, Thin Ice." Such sign shall be a minimum of two feet by three feet in size and shall feature letters of a minimum height of three inches and colors in such a way as to be clearly visible on the ice from a distance of 100 feet. Where the ice-retardant system will disturb a distance measured horizontally along the shoreline of more than 25 feet, an additional sign shall be required for each 25 feet of shoreline or fraction thereof.

B. Under normal operating conditions, the affected area of ice created by the ice-retardant system shall not extend more than 25 feet beyond the protected structure.

C. Under normal operating conditions, the affected area of ice should not extend more than 25 feet, measured along the shoreline, from the protected structure.

D. Irrespective of the standard appearing in Subsections B and C above, the affected area of ice, under normal operating conditions, should not extend beyond the side property lines of the property for which the ice-retardant system is being used, as if said property lines were extended into the lake. Said requirement may be waived if the owner and/or operator of the ice-retardant system obtains written permission from the adjacent property owner.

E. Unless the ice-retardant system has been designed and approved in accordance with § 294-5 of this chapter, no system shall be designed or operated in such a way as to prevent ingress or egress to any portion of the water body or to foreclose the formation of ice across a channel.

§ 294-5. Waiver of requirements.

The Township Council may, by resolution, waive the requirements of this chapter in situations of hardship or exceptional public necessity. Exceptional public necessity shall include but is not limited to a necessity to maintain an open channel of water for ferry service or access to island lakefront homes. In considering such an application, the Township Council may refer the application to the Lake Hopatcong Commission for comment. In adopting the resolution, Council shall specify requirements as to markings and lighting. Such requirements can include but are not limited to requiring buoys to be placed in the frozen water body to clearly mark the approach, requiring nighttime illumination or flashing lights to indicate that open water is present, limiting the size of the affected ice area to the minimal necessary for the use and/or publishing public notice of the condition to specify minimal levels of insurance requirements.

§ 294-6. Enforcement; violations and penalties.

A. The Construction Official is hereby designated as the enforcement officer under the terms of this chapter. All complaints received by any municipal agency concerning the operation of ice-retardant systems shall be referred to the Construction Official. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Construction Official shall investigate within five days and, if the complaint is found justified, notify the owner and operator of the terms of this chapter and require compliance within an additional 10 days. The Construction Official may reduce the time period for compliance when the interest of public safety so requires. If the owner or operator of the system fails to undertake the corrections within the specified time frame, the Construction Official may cause a summons to be issued in the Municipal Court of the Township of Jefferson to enforce the requirements of this chapter.

[Amended 2-16-2005 by Ord. No. 4-05]

B. A violation of the terms of this chapter, including the operational requirements, shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense and $250 for the third and subsequent offenses. Each day that a violation of this chapter continues may be deemed to be a separate offense.

§ 294-7. Liability.

Compliance and/or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter shall not preclude any civil action for damages arising from injuries incurred through the operation of an ice-retardant system.

§ 294-8. Construal of provisions.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as repealing any provision of any other municipal ordinance. In the event that any regulation provided above shall vary from the same or a similar regulation of any other municipal ordinance, the more restrictive provision of such ordinance shall be deemed to control.

[Onshore]

One of the most common questions we get in the process of permitting docking is: "What difference does it make if I have a permament dock instead of a seasonal one?" This especially happens when we tell people they must build seasonal. The subject of this thread is in fact a large part of the resoan that seasonal docks are "default" dock type and anything more requires proof of need.

Chapter Env-Wt 400 which regulates dock construction begis as follows:

PART Env-Wt 401 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EVALUATION

Env-Wt 401.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public trust and other interests of the state of New Hampshire, by:

(a) Establishing requirements for the design and construction of structures in order to prevent unreasonable encroachment on surface waters of the State; (emphasis added)

(b) Preserving the integrity of the surface waters of the state by requiring all structures to be constructed so as to insure safe navigation, minimize alterations in prevailing currents, minimize the reduction of water area available for public use, avoid impacts that would be deleterious to fish and wildlife habitat, and avoid impacts that might cause erosion to abutting properties; and (emphasis added)

(c) Ensuring that all projects are constructed using the least impacting alternatives, in a manner that meets the requirements of RSA 483-B and shoreline and bank alteration or stabilization requirements.

Any time a permit is issued for a permanent pier we understand that there is a possiblity and aquatherm will be installed also. (Environmental Services does not regulate the aquatherm; only the dock construction.) Part of the reasoning for installing a season dock is that because it is removed for the winter no aquatherm is needed and there will be less of a "reduction of water area available for public use."

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by shore things

One of the most common questions we get in the process of permitting docking is: "What difference does it make if I have a permament dock instead of a seasonal one?" This especially happens when we tell people they must build seasonal. The subject of this thread is in fact a large part of the resoan that seasonal docks are "default" dock type and anything more requires proof of need.

Chapter Env-Wt 400 which regulates dock construction begis as follows:

PART Env-Wt 401 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EVALUATION

Env-Wt 401.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public trust and other interests of the state of New Hampshire, by:

(a) Establishing requirements for the design and construction of structures in order to prevent unreasonable encroachment on surface waters of the State; (emphasis added)

(b) Preserving the integrity of the surface waters of the state by requiring all structures to be constructed so as to insure safe navigation, minimize alterations in prevailing currents, minimize the reduction of water area available for public use, avoid impacts that would be deleterious to fish and wildlife habitat, and avoid impacts that might cause erosion to abutting properties; and (emphasis added)

(c) Ensuring that all projects are constructed using the least impacting alternatives, in a manner that meets the requirements of RSA 483-B and shoreline and bank alteration or stabilization requirements.

Any time a permit is issued for a permanent pier we understand that there is a possiblity and aquatherm will be installed also. (Environmental Services does not regulate the aquatherm; only the dock construction.) Part of the reasoning for installing a season dock is that because it is removed for the winter no aquatherm is needed and there will be less of a "reduction of water area available for public use."

This is an example of why we don't need to keep adding more laws and instead better enforce those already in place.

I know of several cases where aquatherms are being used for "seasonal" dock systems because the owners don't want to bother removing them. Why not start with making sure that seasonally permitted docks are in fact just that?

(this is not a question for you shore things. I appreciate your frequent and educational posts. Rhetorical...)

[HarborSide CHBay]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

This is an example of why we don't need to keep adding more laws and instead better enforce those already in place.

I know of several cases where aquatherms are being used for "seasonal" dock systems because the owners don't want to bother removing them. Why not start with making sure that seasonally permitted docks are in fact just that?

(this is not a question for you shore things. I appreciate your frequent and educational posts. Rhetorical...)

I actually agree.

I just don't, as an individual, have the legal or regulatory authority for the compliant and safe operation of the aquatherms. That is under the purview of the state governance and enforcement departments.

They won't.

NH Safety, via MP, came to the lake when there was 600-800' of shore front open 200' out. They took no action. They did tell me I need 3 more signs (4 in total, one in each direct), although the 24/7 abutter had no signage at the time at all and now have 1.

NH DES said it would favor an interpretation of 270:33 that "public access thereto" included all waterfront in the winter as the lake level is 20+ feet from the high water mark and should be considered "public" as it is the state's. However, the safety aspect was NH Safety. This was verbal.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY

CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER

Use of Aqua-Therm

Section 270:33

270:33 Heating, Agitating or Other Devices in Public Waters, Safety Hazard. – No person shall put, place, operate or cause to be put, placed or operated in the waters of this state any so-called heating, agitating or other device which inhibits or prevents the natural freezing of water, or forming of ice, and impedes either the ingress or egress to or from ice by means of any public access thereto. If the heating, agitating or other device is placed anywhere else, nearby signs shall likewise be placed to warn of possible danger. Said signs shall read DANGER, THIN ICE and shall be of sufficient size to be readable at a distance of not less than 150 feet, and shall be visible from all directions and shall be equipped with reflectors and color-coded in a pattern unique for this purpose only. The department of safety is hereby authorized to establish said unique design and coloring and any homemade copies shall follow this design and coloring. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by any law enforcement agency under the direction of the department of safety pursuant to RSA 106-A:14 and the department of fish and game pursuant to RSA 206:26.
Source. 1973, 321:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

It has been 30-years since this has been updated. I'd be satisfied with with adding 2 WORDS "public or abutter," for me as it solves the issue and can be enforced. It doesn't address others who open up waters along their own shorefront, or outward into the lake.

Chapter Env-Wt 400 which regulates dock construction begis as follows:

PART Env-Wt 401 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EVALUATION

Env-Wt 401.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public trust and other interests of the state of New Hampshire, by:

(a) Establishing requirements for the design and construction of structures, ADDED (see comment) and subsequent operation of ice retardant systems, in order to prevent unreasonable encroachment on surface waters of the State; (emphasis added)

(b) Preserving the integrity of the surface waters of the state by requiring all structures to be constructed so as to insure safe navigation, minimize alterations in prevailing currents, minimize the reduction of water area available for public use, avoid impacts that would be deleterious to fish and wildlife habitat, and avoid impacts that might cause erosion to abutting properties; ADDED (see comment) or reduced lake access to abutting properties, including but not limited to, subsequent operation of ice retardant systems in all such above regards, and (emphasis added)

(c) Ensuring that all projects are constructed using the least impacting alternatives, in a manner that meets the requirements of RSA 483-B and shoreline and bank alteration or stabilization requirements.

Thank you 'shore things for this reference. I was unaware of it. It appears, IMO, that it deals with "construction approval?"

I would also recommend small language changes (IN RED ABOVE) to this that would basically make some of these purported impacts during the application process must be maintained thereafter, with revocation of a permanent dock for subsequent non-compliance (obviously, with various levels of warnings).

This would provide a 2-prong 2-Department enforcement approach; (1) NH DES dock permit and subsequent operation of ice-retardant systems as per application as a condition of retaining the dock permit) and (2) NH SAFETY under the language changes in the above mentioned RSA.

[Gearhead]

Growing up in a resort town on the ocean and having lived in two houses on the beach we always had a neighbor who threatened or hassled my folks over land or land use (especially THE PROPERTY LINES). It looks to me like it happens anywhere there's a lot of money involved and it's the stuff that usually makes lawyers rich. One neighbor got what was coming to him when our land was surveyed and it turned out we owned his driveway and part of the back of his house.

I may not represent everybody's views, but if I knew my neighbor was scheming against me and talking about the law, I'd for certain push back. I could think of a thousand other things that would be far more annoying than leaving a bubbler on - for example feeding the geese.

[HarborSide CHBay]

Originally Posted by Gearhead

I may not represent everybody's views, but if I knew my neighbor was scheming against me and talking about the law, I'd for certain push back. I could think of a thousand other things that would be far more annoying than leaving a bubbler on - for example feeding the geese.

Apparently, the precipitating property owner affecting a neighbors access to the lake for entire winters (as well as create huge, uninsured safety exposure) does not bother you, but the neighbors attempt to correct it does bother you? And you would 'get back at them?

My neighbors aren't like you. They get most of all of the above by email. Very up front.

[HUH]

Curious how much a 1/2 HP circulator adds to ones electric bill each month. Never had any dock damage without one in the last 51 years. New folks around us have started using circulators, some of them without timers apparently. Lots of birds living around the edge of the open water. One place where snowmobiles and ice fisherman used to get on and off the ice has been open water now for the last 8 years due to circulators.. seems like a monkey see monkey do thing for many of them.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by HUH

Curious how much a 1/2 HP circulator adds to ones electric bill each month.

In crude terms, 1/2 HP is 0.37 KW. If you run it on a timer for say 25% of the time, that's 2.24 KWH per 24 hour period, or 69 KWH in a 31 day month. If your marginal electric rate is 14 cents/KWH, you add just under $10 to the electric bill. If you ran it continuously, you'd pay almost $40 a month, gain nothing in terms of dock protection, and annoy your neighbors who want to get out on the ice in winter.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by DickR

In crude terms, 1/2 HP is 0.37 KW. If you run it on a timer for say 25% of the time, that's 2.24 KWH per 24 hour period, or 69 KWH in a 31 day month. If your marginal electric rate is 14 cents/KWH, you add just under $10 to the electric bill. If you ran it continuously, you'd pay almost $40 a month, gain nothing in terms of dock protection, and annoy your neighbors who want to get out on the ice in winter.

Or you could run it responsibly a few hours a day and spend only a few bucks preventing thousands of dollars in damage to your dock. You could allow ice to lock in around your posts and go years without ice damage or it could happen often. Before our aquatherm we had two episodes of ice damage from heaving. Aquatherms can be a nuisance when used without consideration for neighbors. It can also be a good piece of preventive maintenance if used with common sense.

[HarborSide CHBay]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Or you could run it responsibly a few hours a day and spend only a few bucks preventing thousands of dollars in damage to your dock. You could allow ice to lock in around your posts and go years without ice damage or it could happen often. Before our aquatherm we had two episodes of ice damage from heaving. Aquatherms can be a nuisance when used without consideration for neighbors. It can also be a good piece of preventive maintenance if used with common sense.

That's the point. Your picture is all that it takes to protect the dock from winter ice formation and lake rise, and allows the ice to form to the shore land which will assist in protecting in the spring.

If you scroll up to my photo of our dock years ago, following the methods of a father son winter dock service, that is all we had was a small round circle at the end of the dock.

Thanks.

With the recent 1-2 inches of snow, the shoreline along Lake Shore Drive is really risky. However, it is setting records for cold. Checked my dock today as the end posts were bent. I set the end aquatherm for a couple of hours to restore end protection.

Checking the rest of the dock, at about the inside third point of my dock, a ridge area from what appears to be the constant current of the 24/7 looks to forming and building against the piles. This is what happened a couple of years ago.

So the dilemma, turn on the inside aquatherm to protect my piles (and become part of the problem, risking contribution to the open waters) or let it be (as the risk to piles isn't even a consideration compared to the safety risk to others, and being exposed to that risk, of those who are openly and knowingly without regard)?

Not willing to take that risk, won't turn it on. Will try to chainsaw some X's in the ice in that area to promote breakup at those piles.

THANKS to many for information posted. I know much more than I did at the outset. It will be a while to get a chance for a rep to sponsor a bill, but at least I have some contacts and they understand that the lakes have changed in the 3-4 decades since the existing laws, and regulations, have been updated to address current issues.

Hopefully there will be operating guidelines tied to the dock permits and ice retardant systems in the future that are enforceable and consequential.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Not sure what other city or towns along the lake require but in Laconia I pay .50 cents for a permit which asks for all my contact information as well as where the aquatherm will be placed, how many aquatherms and the amount of area of ice to be open. I have a neighborhood water access close to my home so I pay very close attention to how much ice I clear. If I couldn't keep that access safe for snowmobiles going on the lake I would be in violation of my permit and open for trouble. I keep just enough water open to protect the docks. You can walk the ice around them because I only turn them on to reopen the previous hole. This forms a thick ring around the docks. If you have an aquatherm near public access that you can't babysit you are nuts running it on a timer or thermostat imo.

And tis, you are very right. All the effort during the winter keeping the docks ice free is moot when the spring wind blows and large ice masses crash without anything to stop them. Last spring the wind blew out of the north west taking the ice in Paugus Bay into the Margate area (AC2717 will attest). The Town Docks got hit hard too. Other years the wind comes out of the south and impacts me. Nothing stops that ice. You just have to be lucky!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Instead of getting all lawyered up over this....maybe just pull your neighbor's plug that powers up the circulator and attach a friendly "hey neighbor" note suggesting they install a time/temp controller so's the water opening in the ice will be much much smaller???

I hope you are joking. Pull that plug, and it is likely that you would be liable for damages that could occur to the dock.