AQUATHERMS - Rights, Safety and Water Quality

[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.