NH Shoreline Protection Act

[J’raxis 270145]

A scuffle over shoreline modifications is what set Carl Drega off.

Is the State trying for a repeat of that?

[John Edward Mercier]

The State took input from several shore land owners that powerboats and PWCs were causing erosion and disrupting the bottom causing the release of algae-bloom producing nutrients.

The State isn't worried about Carl Drega-types... they're worried that they will violate the NH Constitution and be held in default.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

So if the powerboaters and PWCs need to be restricted to protect the shore line from erosion and not add nutrients to the water... then all classes of men (including shore line owners) get restricted.

I deal with this all the time... one side feeling that by emotion, coercion, or threat of force will somehow prevail over others. It never works... always backfires... and results in unintended consequences.

Anti-rafting and no wake zones are petitioned every year with subjective reasoning.

[freeborn]

The State isn't worried about Carl Drega-types... they're worried that they will violate the NH Constitution and be held in default.

Perhaps you should go back and read one of my posts above.  The State is already violating the Constitution.

This is what the CSPA states:

483-B:5 II. The commissioner or his designee may, for cause, enter upon any land or parcel at any reasonable time to perform oversight and enforcement duties provided for in this chapter.

And here is the Constitution:

[Art.] 19. [Searches and Seizures Regulated.] Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order, in a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued; but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by law.

They have to have a warrant to enter your property. What part of that don't you understand?

The State can not override the Constitution with a law.

[John Edward Mercier]

They're not.
The word 'reasonable' is what allows police warrantless access when they have probable cause a crime is being committed.
So the statute says 'for cause'.

I know it sucks... and believe me my heart goes out for those trapped in this silliness.
My property is different silliness, but the same angst.

[freeborn]

The police have to see a crime being committed in order to have probable cause.  The DES does not have this authority.

This will be tested in court very soon, take my word for it.  The complaint has already been drafted. And until then if anyone from the government comes on my land without my permission they will be looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun, loaded.

If I wanted to live in a dictatorship, I'd move to North Korea.

[John Edward Mercier]

If a police officer saw a crime being committed... it wouldn't fall under probable cause.
It would be a case of witness to an act.

The policing authority is derived from the Legislature and can be empowered upon any agency and agent of its choosing.

[BillKauffman]

All lakes over 20 acres (and groundwater) are owned in common in the state of NH as an individual equal access right. The beach between high tide and low tide is also common areas.

Homeowners own up to the high water mark at the beach.

[freeborn]

All lakes over 20 acres (and groundwater) are owned in common in the state of NH as an individual equal access right. The beach between high tide and low tide is also common areas.

Homeowners own up to the high water mark at the beach.

It is all lakes over 10 acres.

The problem with the CSPA is that the State now thinks they own everyones land to 250 feet from the shoreline.

And don't tell them they own the groundwater or they will charge us a permit fee to take water from our wells.
Communist Russia comes to mind.

[BillKauffman]

don't tell them they own the groundwater or they will charge us a permit fee to take water from our wells.

If the "they" you are referring to is "the state", then "they" don't own anything. You are describing collective property not common property.

Individuals have an individual equal access opportunity right.
Governance as legitimate authority is constitutionally limited to protecting individual rights from infringement, as well as, acting as the trustee to protect the integrity of the common asset for common benefit of ALL individuals.

In this case, the individual rights are common rights.

If one individual's use of the groundwater infringes on another's, then it is a legitimate use of power to STOP the infringement in DEFENSE of individual equal access rights (common rights).

Don't confuse common rights which are individual with collective rights which are joint rights - they are NOT the same.

[John Edward Mercier]

Maybe english helps.
It means the State has the responsibility to protect the rights of access and usage of each individual.
You can use the lake or groundwater as long as your usage does not prevent another's usage or threat to do so.

So while I can pump the groundwater that I need for my home... I can't simply poor anything onto my property that might threaten your groundwater rights.

The CSPA came about when several outspoken shore line owners suggested that powerboating resulted in damage to their property... the State agreed and restricted powerboating.
But then the other shoe fell... those supportive of powerboating realized that shore line owners could be endangering the common property of surface water. They formed with other groups and pushed the State to protect their 'property'... and the CSPA was born.

So now while the shore line owner gets to prevent the PWC rider from 'buzzing' around their home... they also have lost control over some landscaping and building freedoms.
And it doesn't take a majority of people to get this to happen... just a few political active looking to gain their POV into statute.

On my property, I can't own a single chicken (livestock)... but can own a dozen or more dogs (pet).
Its local, but just as stupid.