Update to Lake Related Legislation

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Hello Everyone!
Please see the previous thread on Lake Related Legislation. I am providing an update on two crucial bills that will be heard tomorrow at the State House, please use your voice and help communicate your support to help pass these bills and protect our waterbodies!
Thank You,
Bree Rossiter
Conservation Program Manager

HB 1103 - relative to revising the penalties of the shoreline protection act.
Public Hearing: 01/17/2024 1:00 pm at Legislative Office Building 305
Committee: Resources, Recreation, and Development
👍 LWA Position: Support

This bill aims to streamline NHDES enforcement by modifying conditions for penalties under the Shoreland Protection Act. The revised criteria will remove impediments to the Department’s ability to seek civil penalties and administrative fines for proven violations.

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

HB 1113 - Shoreland Septic Systems
Public Hearing: 01/17/2024 2:00 pm at Legislative Office Building 305
Committee: House Resources, Recreation and Development
👍 LWA Position: Support

➡️Expands the area defined for waterfront property from within 200 ft. of the reference line to 250 ft. -
➡️ During a waterfront property sale, if the installed septic system is older than 20 years and/or not approved by NHDES, a detailed septic disposal system evaluation performed by a New Hampshire permitted septic system designer is required.
➡️ If the septic disposal system designer discovers that the system is in failure the designer will notify NHDES and the local health officer, and include that information in the site assessment report.
➡️ If the septic system is determined to be in failure, the system is required to be replaced before the close of the property sale.
Express your support in two ways:

1. Attend the public hearings 🎤
2. Use Remote Sign In Form
*winnipesaukee.org/take-action for link

[WinnisquamZ]

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills

Just got off the phone with my Rep. who is on the RR & D committee. These are issues that continue year after year. Agreed that if you plan to buy a shorefront property and build new, preventing the sale is counter-productive. A shorefront property near me sold last year for $875000. No septic at all, still on an outhouse. No problem. A friend on a small lake had a neighbor's septic fail. Not shorefront, but 200'-300' set back, on the other side of the circumferential road. The road really doesn't slow water runoff the way better vegetation would. Increasing the set back jurisdiction may have some merit, but there should be some consideration of vegetation, slopes and soil types, as those can be significant factors in water and runoff flow.

Wake boats: If there is concern in some areas about wake boats causing erosion damage, then DES should have some say in the regulatory process. That is not an area of expertise for MP. and DOS. (I'm generally opposed to the petition system for adding new regulations.)

[John Mercier]

Moving it from 200' to 250' is considered a rather large move by most legislators, it is very doubtful that they could get through a move to more than 300'.
Not that it isn't maybe the right thing to do... but just not legislatively feasible.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The DES guys have always been quite reasonable, I can't imagine that a random kayaker with no proof of violation is going to get anywhere.

I do agree that the septic rules will cost some homeowners some money. But I think this is one of those regulations where we REALLY want to make sure our next door neighbors are in compliance. We're swimming it! The law just requires them to inspect and fix a failed septic before they sell their house for millions of dollars. Aren't responsible homeowners having their septic maintained once every 5 years or so anyway?

[John Mercier]

The way I read HB1103, the complaint of the passing kayaker wouldn't be handled any differently than now. Just the final outcome would be streamlined once a violation is found.

HB1113, I get the argument. A responsible homeowner would also be paying the cost. Maybe amending it to include everyone, not just shorefront owners, and changing it from 20 years old to a system that has not been maintained or inspected at least twice in the last ten years.

It just appears to me that HB1103 may have a chance to pass in its current form... no one wants to be soft on lawbreakers; while HB1113 seems to punish even the reasonable homeowner that is most likely in the majority to catch the small percentage of those that don't.

[WinnisquamZ]

The information I received from others on the lake
HB 1103, relative to revising the penalties of the shoreland protection act
This bill makes it less difficult for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to enforce penalties for violations of the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act. The act establishes a 250-foot buffer around our lakes where vegetation removal, fertilizer use, excavation, fill, and development are regulated. Currently, the department must prove that a violation damaged the waterbody and fines can only be issued after the department determines the violator failed to make a good-faith effort to correct the problem. This bill does not raise fees for violations of the act.

NH LAKES and the WWN support HB 1103 for these key reasons:
• It will help the department hold individuals who violate the act accountable for their actions and may deter others from violating the act.
• It will reduce the amount of polluted runoff water flowing off the landscape degrading the health of our lakes and potentially contributing to the increasing frequency and severity of toxic cyanobacteria blooms in our lakes.
• It is consistent with the recommendations included in the State's recently released plan to address cyanobacteria blooms.
HB 1103 Hearing Information:
• Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024
• Time: 1:00 p.m.
• Committee: House Resources, Recreation and Development
• Location: Room 305, Legislative Office Building, Concord, New Hampshire


HB 1113, relative to relative to shoreland septic systems
This bill modifies requirements for site assessments of shoreland septic systems when a property near a lake is sold. If the system is not approved by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, or was approved more than 20 years ago, a detailed septic evaluation by a permitted septic system designer will be required. If the system is found to be in failure, the state and the local health officer must be notified, and this must be included in the site assessment report. As the bill is currently written, failed systems will need to be replaced prior to the close of the sale.

NH LAKES and the WWN support HB 1113 for these key reasons:
The current site assessment requirement, which relies on visual inspection of the land surface, is not sufficient to determine if a septic system is failing. Many septic systems cause pollution problems without any visible signs of failure. This bill requires that a system be evaluated for its ability to contain and treat sewage discharge by inspecting a number of components of the system.
Septic systems contribute a substantial portion of the nutrient pollution to our waters, degrading lake health and potentially contributing to the increasing frequency and severity of toxic cyanobacteria blooms in our lakes.
This bill is consistent with the recommendations included in the State's recently released plan to address cyanobacteria blooms.
HB 1113 Hearing Information:
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Committee: House Resources, Recreation and Development
Location: Room 305, Legislative Office Building, Concord, New Hampshire



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Sounds about right... except I believe it includes fourth order or higher streams/rivers.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Correct. From RSA 483-B:4:

"Public waters" shall include:
(a) All lakes, ponds, and artificial impoundments greater than 10 acres in size.
(b) Coastal waters, being all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, including the Great Bay Estuary and the associated tidal rivers.
(c) Rivers, meaning all year-round flowing waters of fourth order or higher and all rivers and river segments designated as protected under RSA 483:15.

[ITD]

Speaking of sewage reaching the lake, this morning I drove by the site of the last sewage release on 25 in Center Harbor and there was about 10 large trucks with a an excavator or two and a hole deep enough to require a ladder to climb into. I wonder if that pipe broke again??

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Yes- The Center Harbor Fire Dept. posted on FB that there was a sewer main break on Whittier Hwy and that personnel were working to contain the spill. NHDES and the utility were notified and remediation was underway. No update since.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Status: IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Session: 01/24/2024 10:00 am Legislative Office Building 305
Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development
LWA Position: Oppose

Here is the video of the public testimony of HB1099 from RR&D Committee.
https://www.youtube.com/live/BwtgqP6...CsTThFf&t=3920

This bill repeals a general prohibition for the overnight mooring of houseboats otherwise permitted under RSA 270-A. The current law states that houseboats are allowed on inland waters overnight if on owned or leased land with permission from the property owner and after notification to NHDES. Without permission or ownership, no houseboats are permitted for an overnight period except in cases of emergency.

The definition of a houseboat is extremely loose, allowing a raft or float to be considered if there are sleeping and toilet facilities, which can be permanent or temporary. Think small pontoon with a bucket for a worst case scenario.

During the public hearing on January 17 the Prime Sponsor, Representative Griffin, introduced the bill and noted that it was at the request of multiple constituents. Supporters believe that water bodies over 10 acres in size, known as "Great Ponds," are held in public trust, which should not be restricted to daytime hours. The representative expressed being open to amendments, such as limiting the allowed time to 3-4 days per month, including it in the state rooms/meals tax if rented, and imposing additional restrictions on toilet facilities. Although Marine Patrol is taking a neutral position, Captain Dunleavy spoke of potential concerns, including increased conflict between shorefront property owners and boaters. He mentioned that enforcing existing regulations is already challenging due to understaffing, and noted that this would be difficult to enforce. Lastly, two members of the public spoke in support of the bill, noting that New Hampshire is the only state in the country that completely prohibits overnight mooring for those without a marina slip or those without waterfront property, limiting available recreation opportunities.

LWA is in opposition to this bill as the consequences of repealing this prohibition does not outweigh the impacts that this will have on our waterbodies.

Even though public testimony is currently closed there is STILL TIME to email the committee members before the executive session on January 24 and voice your opinion. Send your email to:

HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopme....state.n h.us

-Introduce yourself and explain why you are writing in a polite and respectful manner.
-If you are contacting them to discuss a specific legislation include the title of the bill in the subject line.
-In the first sentence or two, state whether you support or oppose the bill and why.
-Consider adding a personal anecdote and include how the bill would affect you and your community.
-Include your contact information: name, phone number, address and email.

Thank you!

[John Mercier]

They are going to let me AirBnB the lake with houseboats?

[tis]

They must want to destroy the lake. If they are so worried about lawns and sewers, let's start living on the lake and see what happens.

[tummyman]

Always nice to see that the three sponsors are all from Hillsborough County. Is there even a puddle there to float a boat ???

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Always nice to see that the three sponsors are all from Hillsborough County. Is there even a puddle there to float a boat ???

Isn't that usually the way it is? People who have no idea making rules for us- again.

[TiltonBB]

I don't understand this:

"The current law states that houseboats are allowed on inland waters overnight if on owned or leased land with permission from the property owner and after notification to NHDES."

How can you be on inland waters if you are on "owned or leased land"? There is something missing in this sentence.

[Garcia]

I am not a fan of allowing overnight mooring. At this point it seems like the lake is in such high use the marine patrol has challenges keeping up. I would be concerned about people spending the day at a sandbar and continuing their fun through the night without a significant increase in resources to be ready to address problems before they arise. Do I think the majority will abuse the privilege - no. It's the minority who feel rules and common sense don't apply that will become problematic. Many on the forum express frustration with a wide range of issues today including wake boat issues, noise problems, wake zone issues, poor choices at sandbars, etc. If the current staffing level of the marine patrol struggles to resolve these concerns (again, seems a common notion among the forum) adding in the issue of overnight mooring will only add to the problem.

It's too bad because the idea of allowing overnight mooring is a good one - it's the implementation and consequences that concern me.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I don't understand this:

"The current law states that houseboats are allowed on inland waters overnight if on owned or leased land with permission from the property owner and after notification to NHDES."

How can you be on inland waters if you are on "owned or leased land"? There is something missing in this sentence.

I should of phrased that better...here is the RSA

270-A:2 Where Overnight Mooring Permitted. – A HOUSEBOAT may be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period, or any part of an overnight period, only when on or at a location owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the owner or operator of the HOUSEBOAT or by permission of the owner, lessee, or person otherwise in control of such location. An unoccupied HOUSEBOAT may be anchored on the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period, or any part of an overnight period, only in an area reasonably adjacent to a location owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the owner or operator of the HOUSEBOAT or by permission of the owner, lessee, or person otherwise in control of such location.

[HalfMiler]

Many thanks for the ongoing updates regarding the sewer line ruptures along route 25 in Center Harbor. Can anyone provide insight to the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties - the line owner, the town, the state, the impacted property owners?

[Descant]

There are some marina based transient docks--or at least there used to be--municipal docks could follow that model, charging a fee. Mostly they sent a police car around in the middle of the night to see that nobody is there. No big deal to have them check for a flag or other tag that shows they paid a fee. Most towns already have restrooms near the docks, so that shouldn't be an issue. Of course, a "houseboat" would already have a state inspection sticker for their plumbing facility.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Originally Posted by HalfMiler

Many thanks for the ongoing updates regarding the sewer line ruptures along route 25 in Center Harbor. Can anyone provide insight to the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties - the line owner, the town, the state, the impacted property owners?

Yes! There is a two town “sewer district” made up of Moultonborough and Center Harbor. The Bay District Sewer Commission is an elected commission made up of 3 commissioners who manage the Bay District collection system in the two towns, as far as I know they employ one part-time engineer to oversee the general operation of the system. This system is a part of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program (WRBP) which falls under the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Although the Sewer District falls under the oversight of the WRBP, they are still responsible for contacting NHDES and EPA to report a spill- which they have done for the Jan 16,2024 rupture and the November 2023 rupture which was approx. 60 ft. away. According to NHDES the culvert was blocked, lined, cleaned, and repaired and is not thought to be a concern for a chronic source of point pollution into the Bay. They will continue to test and monitor the area for E.Coli and pathogens.

The larger concern in our opinion is that this is the second break in a fairly short period of time in one localized area. Our infrastructure statewide is aging and is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. In addition to age, climate change is also thought to be a factor in pipe failures due to changes such as temperature and precipitation.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

We are sending this e-mail update to our subscribers this afternoon. It goes into more detail about upcoming bills. Rather than copy that info word for word, I thought it might be best to summarize here:

Legislative Updates

HB 1049 (Overnight Mooring of Houseboats):
-Committee received 200+ emails against.
-Committee voted 18-2 (ITL).
-Moves to Full House
*Because the vote was not unanimous it will go to the Full House Committee where it may or may not be debated on. A few members of the committee did note that they may like to see a version this bill return next year, but changed to consider ROW for property owners, seasonal housing opportunities, and water quality.

HB1103-FN (Shoreland Protection Act Penalties):
-Committee voted unanimously OTP (Ought to Pass).
-Advancing to the Senate.

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

Upcoming Public Hearings:

SB431 (Wake Surfing):
Hearing: 01/30/2024, 1:00 pm, Legislative Office Building 101, SC5.
Committee: Senate Transportation.
LWA Position: Oppose.
Adds restrictions on wake surfing; LWA opposes due to potential ineffectiveness.

There is another bill regarding wake boating and wake sports that will be coming before the RR&D Committee. HB1390 will define a "Wake sports zone” as an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are at least 500 feet from shore on all sides and is at least 20 feet deep, located on a lake, pond, or reservoir. LWA plans to support HB1390 as providing the restrictions needed to ensure that wake surfing does not erode shorelines or negatively impact water quality.

To put this in perspective, we have created a map showing the 150 ft., 200 ft., and 500 ft. distances from shore on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can clearly see that a 500 foot setback from shore would not limit the areas in which people can wake surf - there's a lot of lake out there!

Click Here to View Map of 150 ft, 200 ft and 500 ft shoreline buffer.


HB1143 (Cyanobacteria Blooms under NH Clean Lakes Program):
Hearing: 01/31/2024, 10:00 am, Legislative Office Building 305.
Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development.
LWA Position: Support.
Requires NHDES to address cyanobacteria blooms; LWA supports as a mechanism for NHDES control and mitigation of blooms.

HB1229 (Purchase and Sale of Shoreland Property):
Hearing: 01/31/2024, 2:00 pm, Legislative Office Building 305.
Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development.
LWA Position: Support.
Requires acknowledgment of shoreland water quality protection act compliance standards during property transactions.

[longislander]

To view the shoreline buffer map, some readers of this thread, like myself, have adblockers or virus control on their laptops. You might have to temporarily disable them in "extensions". I've got Adblock Plus and PC Matic and had to go to extensions at the top right corner of my laptop page (three dots), click on extensions and disable. Then go back and enable again for back to protected.

Thank you Lake Winnipwsaukee Association for your efforts.

[tummyman]

LWA>>>>> Need to know when HB 1390 is scheduled so we can voice support !!

[longislander]

HB1390
Title: relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports.
Sponsors: (Prime) Tanner (D), Rung (D), Vail (D), Darby (D), Prentiss (D)

Introduced 01/03/2024 and referred to Resources, Recreation and Development HJ 1

House Committee: Resources, Recreation and DevelopmentDue Out: 3/21/2024 Status: IN COMMITTEE

LSR Number: 24-2480

[upthesaukee]

Search NH.gov and navigate to Legislative Branch>Bill Tracking System>hb1390>enter.

It should come up with the bill, currently being shown in committee.

Dave

[longislander]

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/


https://gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_sea...R_Results.aspx


https://legiscan.com/NH/legislation/2024

[tummyman]

Got all that and have had all the info, but cannot see where it has been scheduled for action by the commitee, which is important to send comments along.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Originally Posted by tummyman

LWA>>>>> Need to know when HB 1390 is scheduled so we can voice support !!

Not scheduled yet. I'll let you know ASAP! The House and Senate Calendars are posted every Friday, indicating when bills will be heard by committee, go to exec session, status etc. Here is a link to where you can find these. You can also sign up to get updates for specific bills.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...dars_journals/
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/sen...dars_journals/

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Isn't that usually the way it is? People who have no idea making rules for us- again.

There are residents in Hillsborough that do not own lakefront property, or use marina access, but being public they technically ''own the lake'' as much as anyone else in NH.
So the people asking for the rule change have an idea what they want to do.

I suppose that removing the vessel from a lake, and then having to trailer home, back early in the morning, and wait at the public launch... if parking can be found... and relaunch they consider a hassle.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

There are residents in Hillsborough that do not own lakefront property, or use marina access, but being public they technically ''own the lake'' as much as anyone else in NH.
So the people asking for the rule change have an idea what they want to do.

While I agree they have the same rights to the lake as anyone else, do they actually have an idea of what they are trying to change or the effects?

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Link to the public hearing for more info from the constituents

https://www.youtube.com/live/BwtgqP6...Uh4bUaUxcGbfb1

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by codeman671

While I agree they have the same rights to the lake as anyone else, do they actually have an idea of what they are trying to change or the effects?

They know what they are trying to do. The effect on the lakes does not seem to be a concern.

The other group of representatives are worried about the effect on the lake.

[Descant]

There's some irony here. The people who would most want to sleep overnight on the hook, would mostly be trailer-able boats, pontoons and bow riders, not properly equipped. Larger boats with holding tanks, enclosed staterooms, etc already have a place at a marina and don't need to anchor overnight.

[John Mercier]

In the end, a raft, a Jolly Roger on a broomstick, and a port-a-potty.
"Properly - Equipped'' will be defined by the masses without lakefront property.

[Pine Island Guy]

the word from the Pine Islanders is that the Bill in question was killed 18 to 2 today

No further info

But anyone have an info on the ice thickness from Meredith Neck out to Bear or Pine?

Thanks!! -PIG

[John Mercier]

HB1049 had Executive scheduled today... so it could not have had a floor vote.
18 to 2 would most likely signal an ITL recomendation.

There was a similar bill before that got the same reaction...

[longislander]

A bill is considered killed when the House or Senate votes to adopt the committee report of "Inexpedient to legislate," or when a motion from the floor to "Indefinitely postpone" is adopted.


https://www.nh.gov/almanac/bills.htm...20is%20adopted.

[John Mercier]

The House or Senate did not vote.
The Executive is for the committee to vote on its recommendation.

The House or Senate has a vote either the day after or at an even later date.
We call that a floor vote. It will not be 18-2.

[tis]

Just imagine a Braun Bay overnight!!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

They must want to destroy the lake. If they are so worried about lawns and sewers, let's start living on the lake and see what happens.

Different group of representatives.

One side is looking at ways to preserve the lakes, the other is looking to provide more access for those that cannot afford it.

[WinnisquamZ]

Just one more thing MP will attempt to enforce. But, unable to.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

Major, I got that also today.

[tummyman]

I cannot support this bill and encourage others to oppose it as well. It only increases the setback from 150 ft to 200 feet from docks, shrelans, etc. We already have the 150 ft headway speed now. Adding another 50 feet does nothing. Instead support HB1390...now that is real change...500 feet. Read that bill on line before you agree to anything. But this senate bill is useless in my opinion.

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

I cannot support this bill and encourage others to oppose it as well. It only increases the setback from 150 ft to 200 feet from docks, shrelans, etc. We already have the 150 ft headway speed now. Adding another 50 feet does nothing. Instead support HB1390...now that is real change...500 feet. Read that bill on line before you agree to anything. But this senate bill is useless in my opinion.

Why do you suppose the wake boat people want it?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

Why do you suppose the wake boat people want it?

Same reason the recreational boaters supported a NWZ 20 years ago between Eagle and Governor's. They wanted to prove that they were safety supporters. Unnecessary, if MP could/would enforce the 150' boat to boat law.

[tummyman]

This is HB1390 that absolutely should be supported STRONGLY.


HB 1390
1 New Paragraphs; Boating and Water Safety; Definitions Added. Amend RSA 270-D:1 by inserting after paragraph XIII the following new paragraphs:
XIV. "Wakeboat” means a motorboat that has one or more ballast tanks, ballast bags, or other similar devices used to enhance or increase the size of the motorboat’s wake.
XV. “Wakesports” means:
(a) Using a surfboard, wakeboard, hydrofoil, or similar device to ride on or in the wake directly behind a wakeboat with or without a rope, including wake surfing; or
(b) Operating a wakeboat with someone riding the wake directly behind the boat.
XVI. “Wakesports zone” means an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are at least 500 feet from shore on all sides and is at least 20 feet deep, located on a lake, pond, or reservoir on which vessels powered by internal combustion motors are allowed and may be used at speeds exceeding 5 miles per hour.
2 New Section; Boating and Water Safety; Wakesports. Amend RSA 270-D by inserting after section 3 the following new section:
270-D:3-a Wakesports.
I. In addition to requirements in this chapter and rules adopted thereunder, the following prohibitions and limitations shall apply:
(a) Wakesports are prohibited between sunset and sunrise.
(b) Wakesports are prohibited behind a vessel propulsion system that extends beyond the swim platform.
(c) Wakesports shall not be permitted:
(1) On a body of water smaller than 50 contiguous acres.
(2) Within 500 feet of a shoreline or in-water structures.
(3) In waters less than 20 feet deep.
II. The commissioner shall develop and make publicly available wakesports zone maps of legal areas on New Hampshire public waters that meet the requirements of paragraph I.
3 New Paragraph; Rulemaking; Wakesports. Amend RSA 270-D:8 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:
III. Regulation of wakesports under RSA 270-D:3-a.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2024.

[codeman671]

I think 500 feet is a bit much. 200-250 would be a good compromise.

As an add on, how about making the safe passage around a water sports vessel 200-250 feet? I can’t count the number of times I have been encroached on when towing by other vessels. At minimum 1 or more times every time we go out.

[Descant]

I don't surf anymore. (since 1970). I don't live anywhere that has a problem with those who do. I do see several flaws in the language in HB1390.
More important is that I think it is misdirected at wake boats. In the 60's and 70's we had surfing without wake boats. Using a 20-22' boat, it was easy to seat 2-3 people in one corner of the stern and create a wake for surfing. Just as the laws restricting jet skis were overridden by making three seat 13' "boats", there will be means to create wakes without ballast tanks. Or, a new (bothersome) sport will come along.

There are (to me) technical flaws. The bill is supposed to be effective July 1, 2024. That would be the date when the DOS is authorized to make wake zone maps. Can't do that simultaneously. I'd guess the DOS needs to bid that out with required time frames for the bid process and then time to actually make the maps. There's no funding provided. If my wake boat with a surfer needs 200' to turn, shouldn't the map show1200' instead of 1000'?Bills that involve penalties for violations are usually effective January 1. This allows time for training, printing new guides, educating staff and the public, etc.

Can I surf near Middle Ground Shoals in the middle of the broads? How about the Witches? And the bay opposite Patrician Shores?

When there are multiple bills on the same subject it is not uncommon for the committee to kill all except one, and vote the last one as "Interim Study". I would support Interim Study. That means the bill will get a report to the House at the end of the session and a new bill will be filed next year. 2025 is a budget year so that will solve the issue of the cost of mapping.

[tummyman]

There probably would not be a need for any legislation if the wakeboat/surfers were more considerate of where they are operating. Operations in smaller coves and going back and forth for hours on end are causing all sort of erosion etc. to shore-lands and thus people feel the only remedy is some sort of legislative fix. In the cove where my property is located, we have these boats going back and forth for hours on end without interruption. I have had broken boat lines, broken mooring whips, etc. and we cannot even sit on the end of the dock near the shore because of waves that break over the rocks and splash on the dock from enormous waves. With such a large lake with long straight runs, I do not understand why the small coves need to see this activity.

[John Mercier]

So maybe amend the bill for all vessels within 500 feet of shore are subject to the speed restrictions of a ''No Wake'' zone...

New maps would be an addition, but the MP could ticket for any violation of the 500 foot rule without the maps.

I believe that two-seater and stand-ups have a 300 foot shoreline rule, and they can't displace more water than a large boat operating in the same manner.

[Lakegeezer]

Looking at LWA's map referenced in their earlier post (or image below), 500' makes a lot of sense (inside blue lines). It pinches off the narrow areas that are most effected by wake boat tsunamis. 200' has little impact. 1000' would be better! As LWA points out, there is still plenty of space in the lake to wakeboard, but keeping the sport out of the narrow areas is a good compromise. With increased frequency and duration of cyanobacteria blooms, it is time to address the low hanging fruit of root causes.

[longislander]

2024-01-30 House Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 01/24/2024 (Vote 18-2; Regular Calendar)

https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1049/2024

[John Mercier]

Regular calendar means we should know the outcome of the House vote soon enough.

[longislander]

Inexpedient to Legislate 01/24/2024 (Vote 18-2; Regular Calendar)

Means it's dead!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by longislander

Inexpedient to Legislate 01/24/2024 (Vote 18-2; Regular Calendar)

Means it's dead!

Gasping for breath but not dead yet. So far, ITL is just the recommendation of the RR&D Committee. Their report is printed in the House calendar published Feb 2 for full house consideration on Thursday Feb 8. The full house can accept the report, amend the bill and pass it with amendment or return it to committee. There is no minority report in the calendar, so it is unlikely that there will be floor debate or any action other than ITL, but you won't know for sure until after the House takes action on Thursday.
Here are the calendars. #5; Scroll down to page 15 for RR&D reports

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...dars_journals/

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Why do you suppose the wake boat people want it?

Because if your choices are 200 feet or 500 feet, 200 feet is the lessor of evils to them.

They know that it is coming, so lessening the impact is a reasonable strategy.

[winterharbor59]

We wrote to the legislators in opposition to this bill. Most wrote back agreeing with us. Some even seemed annoyed, indicating that the ITL recommendation was obviously enough to kill it. One wrote back saying that the bill needed further discussion. I’m wondering who has a vested (economic) interest in this. As far as I know, none of the marinas on the lake rent large boats with sleeping cabins. And a boat this large is difficult to haul in & out. So who is doing this if they don’t have access to a dock?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

That would most likely be individuals that wish to spend time on the lake, but cannot afford lakefront property or a marina slip.

They would need to trailer in everyday and trailer out every night; so a three day ''visit'' to the lake would be a lot of travel; and quite a bit of effort to do so in a timely manner for the limited parking and ramp access.

It isn't just Winnipesaukee, but many of the lakes.
Access to the smaller bodies of water in the area... say Opechee or Silver Lake is relatively easy... but the travel would still be involved.

[The Real BigGuy]

Come on John. In the present political climate it is easy to see how 15% would disagree with the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Not on this.
This is a housekeeping move.

Nothing stops them from working on the issue over the summer and entering a new LSR for next session.

At that time, they would most likely have a more comprehensive bill.

The basic premise that access to a public body of water is being impeded accept for the select few - I can agree with that.

I used to walk down and get in my boat, travel from Belmont to Chemung to fish/hunt.

At that time, there was really no public ramp on Winnisquam. The Laconia ramp has made public boating access easier, but it is limited. And if you have to pay a private party to access a property that you are an owner of - what does that really say about being an owner?

But trying to place it back in committee... with so much to be done already... just not a great idea.

The proponents should return next session with either a study committee bill, or something much more comprehensive.

[Descant]

If there had been any significant enthusiasm for this concept the bill could have been amended to make it a study committee. "Study committees/commissions are where good ideas go to die."

[John Mercier]

53 is pretty enthusiastic.

It is playing on a theme that I have seen getting out of hand in the last couple of years - complaints about McMansions and others developing their property - either lakefront or in the view shed.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Descant

If there had been any significant enthusiasm for this concept the bill could have been amended to make it a study committee. "Study committees/commissions are where good ideas go to die."

There is nothing good in this idea. Plenty of ocean for people to take their boats and anchor overnite.. or pay for a slip.

[John Mercier]

The idea is about allowing more access to the lake.
The proponents are framing it as evil government trying to restrict.

My concern is it would lower lakefront property values and shift taxes.

Something like the property on Meredith Neck would probably sell for considerably less than the asking price... and that one property has the ability should it sell at the top - or even higher - to double lake front property values moving more taxation away from the everyday inhabitants of Meredith and more toward the lakefront.

Obviously sleeping people are not going to make more noise, and more vessels with heads on board would help protect the lake from the current direct disposal that we know is happening, and more money from the permits for enforcement would help MP; but all that can be achieved without this bill.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

On March 6th, an important bill regarding wakesurfing will be heard by the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee.

HB 1390: an Act relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports.
Public Hearing: 03/6/2024 1:00 pm NH State House, Representatives Hall
Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development
LWA Position: Support

Analysis: This bill establishes prohibitions and limitations for the operation of wakeboats and their use in wakesports on public waters of the state.

The bill seeks to establish a wakesports zone as an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are at least 500 feet from shore on all sides and is at least 20 feet deep.

The Lake Winnipesaukee Association strongly supports this bill because we believe the science and physical documentation is clear – the wakes generated by wake surfing are having a detrimental effect on water quality and aquatic life. To be clear, we are not against wakesurfing, or other water-related sports. We appreciate that this is a fun, family activity enjoyed by many. However, the science shows that the wakes generated by wakesurfing can cause shoreline erosion, turbidity, and present safety hazards to people and children on the shore.

The science indicates that a minimum 500 foot buffer is needed to allow the wakes generated by wake boats to dissipate in order to prevent shoreline damage.

We have created a wakesports zone map to show how little of Lake Winnipesaukee will be affected by establishment of this zone. Clicking on the map will open it in a new window where you can zoom in to a specific area of the lake. The yellow line indicates the 150 foot headway speed or no wake zone from shore. The blue line shows the 500 foot distance from shore proposed in HB1390. There's a lot of lake out there to enjoy!

The legislature anticipates a large turnout for the hearing, which is why it is being held in Representatives Hall. If you can be there in person on March 6th to sign in your support of the bill, the better!

You can submit your comments and position in two ways:

1. Attend the hearing, and sign up in support on the forms on the table just inside the hall. You may also indicate that you want to speak in favor of the bill. Your remarks should be 3 mins and speak to how the bill will have a positive impact on water quality and the environment, and potential negative impacts if not passed.

2. Use the remote sign in form to also share your support for this bill:
Step 1. Fill in your personal information
Step 2. Select the date of the hearing
Step 3. Select the bill
Step 4. Indicate your support and upload your testimony.
Step 5. Review and submit.

Thank You!!

[John Mercier]

I haven't seen the science... so I can't speak to that.

But should we be entering a suggestion in the ear of one of the committee members to amend to all vessels?

It makes it easier to enforce when everyone is using the same rules... and we don't get into the favoritism of one format over another - that as we have seen just leads to industry adaptation to overcome the rule.

[first timer]

SO NEXT will be stop the wind from making waves.. there is a a plan to go atfer bigger boats too because of wakes made by them ,, DO NOT be fooled

[Winni P]

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

[Winni P]

Here is a link to the FAQs of the 2022 study in layman's terms:

https://www.lmac.des.nh.gov/sites/g/...-boat-faqs.pdf

Some quotes:

The report indicates the following outcomes:

1. Wake waves produced by wakesurf boats during wakesurfing are measurably larger than non-wakesurf boats in terms of maximum wave height, total wave energy and maximum power.

2. How a boat is used, or its “typical operation,” is an important consideration. Non-wakesurf boats can generate large waves when they plow water during acceleration to or deceleration from planing, but these boats generally spend little time in this condition. Wakesurf boats used for wakesurfing generally spend a majority of time in this condition. Non-wakesurf boats can be outfitted with aftermarket devices, like a wake shaper, to create wake waves suitable for wakesurfing.

3. Data like those produced in this report can be used to inform guidance on operational distance. For example, this study infers, depending on which non-wakesurf boat reference condition is selected, that at 200 feet of operational distance, the wakesurf boats would need to operate at distances greater than 500 feet or 425 feet from shore/structure/object, etc.

4. This study was limited to four boats and the testing period was relatively short. The study’s data and findings are important additions to the growing body of research in the area of wake waves; however, more studies of this type, as well as studies focusing on how waves and propeller wash interact with lake bottoms, shorelines and structures, are needed.

● Did this study examine shoreline erosion or failure of shoreline protection resulting from large boat waves?

No. The study did not investigate these topics; rather, it focused on characterizing the wake waves themselves. The results of this study will support further research focusing on environmental impacts like shorelines.
----------------------------------------------

Has there been any further studies done? It seems ludacris to draft broad legislation based on this study consisting of testing the wakes of 4 boats (2 wakesurfs/2 recreational boats) all 25 ft or less in a 2 month period.

[John Mercier]

We don't actually expend a huge amount on passing legislation - not enough to really change MP funding anyway.

Enforcement, other than funding, is an Executive issue; so not something the Legislature would work on, unless it was related to increasing fines. But if the MP doesn't write the ticket... the change in fine schedules means nothing.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Winni P

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Many of us don’t do that. It’s counterproductive to do this. The point is to have long straight runs of flat water that you can create a wake on. Going in circles, running over your wake is a hindrance. It beats the crap out of the surfer and makes it difficult to stay up.

Thats more fun for tubing.

[John Mercier]

The setback doesn't just suggest continuing circling... but a simple pass.
As more lake traffic develops, it isn't a single vessel creating the wakes or the resulting erosion.

The basic scope is that an abutting property owners usage is finite if it damages a neighbors' property.

The runoff - septic or otherwise - into the lake is considered the abutting lakefront owners doing damage to a public property, and thus gets restrictions.
But the public property owners can also do damage to their abutting lakefront neighbors - some restriction are going to occur there.

Personally, I just think creating what would be now three categories - if I am counting correctly - is just adding complexity to the issue.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Great point!

Also, if you look at the map drawn by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc, you can see that the bill still leaves the vast majority of the lake available. They are doing whatever they can to be reasonable about a sport that a lot of people enjoy. But the wakeboarders need to reasonable about minimizing damage to others

[Woodsy]

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

[Major]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill!

Unfortunately, useless feel good bills are the result of large governments with nothing better to do but to enact rules and regulations to control the populace. There are so many useless and superfluous rules and regulations, even if we had sufficient numbers of law enforcement they wouldn't be able to effectively enforce the laws.

The issue comes down to common sense and respect, both of which are lacking in today's world. Car manuals from 50 years ago had instructions to rebuild transmissions. Today, those same car manuals provide instructions not to drink the battery acid. That's all you need to know about the world we live.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!
Woodsy

It will be easy to enforce in the sense that the sport will effectively be eliminated from many bays and small lakes. Since wake surfers like calm waters, as they get pushed into areas where there is no protection from winds, there will be fewer and fewer days suitable for the sport.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers ared noticeable, I see most of trhem nevert leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, Kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who ow n many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[ITD]

My observation of large boats is that they go from one spot to another, anchor for the day, then go from that spot back to their home. My observation of wake boats is they come out, make many, many passes, stop for a while, letting others make many, many passes. All day long. The effect on the shore line is dramatic and non stop when the weather is good. The water is more silty and turbid from these boats. I am absolutely for this rule, I don’t think it goes far enough.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

Kayakers are part of HikeSafe. They would probably support moving to a boat registration format; but that may actually lower the amount of money moving toward SAR - as 100% of the HikeSafe goes to SAR and only $1 of a boat registration.

It would be a required purchase rather than a voluntary; but I don't what the ratio would be.

[The Real BigGuy]

If we have a standard 300 or 500 ft set back we might, in reality, get 150 ft in actuality. Just saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

NH House Voting on 2 Wakesurfing bills on Thursday, March 28.

Thank you to everyone who has responded to our previous calls to action regarding two wakesurfing bills - HB1301 and HB1390. We need you once again to contact your representatives!

This Thursday, the two bills go before the full House of Representatives to determine if they move on to the Senate. There is strong opposition to both bills. However, the Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee acknowledges that there is also a strong desire to do something about the negative impacts that wakesurfing can have on our lake's water quality.

HB1301, relative to wakesurfing on public bodies of water, would allow 25 residents or more to petition the NH Department of Safety to prohibit or restrict certain activities on a body of water, or portion thereof. This is the process followed for establishing no wake zones, no jet skiing areas, no rafting zones, etc., and would allow the same process to be followed regarding restricting wake surfing. It does not mean that 25 people can decide to have wakesurfing banned or restricted on a waterbody. The NH Department of Safety would have to go through the public hearing process to determine whether the petition/request is valid and needed. This past week, the Department of Safety confirmed that this bill would not place a burden on other safety hearings or staff.

HB1390, relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports, was amended by the Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee to establish a wakesports zone as an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are 300 feet (previously 500 feet) from shore on all sides. The amended bill removes the 20 ft. minimum depth requirement as well.Here is a link to a 300 ft buffer interactive map for Winni.

https://lakewinnipesauke.maps.arcgis...0f881b8228e18c


LWA supports both of these bills, and we urge you to contact the full House and express your support as well. Your input matters and helps the NH legislators make informed decisions.

HOW TO CONTACT YOUR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

Follow the simple steps below to let the House Representatives in your district know why they should support these bills.

Go to the NH General Court website at: https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/

On the right-hand side, under “Discover a Town or City’s Representative,” select your town in the pulldown menu or click on your region on the map.

The first thing that will appear is the list of Representatives in your town. (Do not scroll down to the State Senator section below. Only the House Representatives will be discussing these bills this week.)

Under the Representative’s section, click on the name of each representative. Their email and/or phone number should pop up. Email or call your representatives. (Calling can really make a BIG impact!)

In your email or phone call, be sure to:

Identify the bills you would like your representative to support on March 28. (Consider an email subject line such as: SUPPORT HB 1301 & 1390 relative to wakesports on March 28)

Identify that you are a constituent from their district. (It’s ok if you don’t permanently live in the district–if you spend part of the year or vacation there, they want to hear from you!)

Tell your brief personal story about why they should support these bills.
Let them know how to reach you if they have questions or would like to learn more.

Please share this with others who may be interested. We appreciate your time, input, and support!

[Blyblvrd]

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Major]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Just so I’m clear. I own a 3-person PWC (2021 SeaDoo). If I want to continue my unfettered right to use my PWC anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee, I vote AGAINST the bill, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Major

Just so I’m clear. I own a 3-person PWC (2021 SeaDoo). If I want to continue my unfettered right to use my PWC anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee, I vote AGAINST the bill, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm, where does it say it affects pwcs? What I read is just ballasted wake boats.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Absolutely, and well said! HB1301 is clear overreach.

[Major]

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No problem Major, just thought I might have missed something. Hopefully someone else will answer your question.

[John Mercier]

HB1562 is through committee with an ITL (20-0, consent calendar).

Everyone should be able to find these.

[Descant]

For me, allowing a petition to set up NWZ, NRZ etc has been abused and the whole process should be scrapped, so I'd vote "NO". The limitation of 300', 50 acres, etc. is certainly a compromise. Nobody leaves the room happy. That's not the best way to make laws, but I guess that's the way we've always done it. I'd like to wait a year and see what the success is in other states who are passing wake boat laws right now. Table it or send it to interim study.

[John Mercier]

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.

If HB1562 were to by some miracle pass at the 300' mark... then I could see them moving all the boats including the wake boats to that mark.

But right now... its more like a game of picking winners and losers.
And we shouldn't be doing that.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.....

What happens in other states is very important. When a rep drafts a bill, one of the first steps is for legislative services to research other states as well as past bills submitted in NH. On many subjects there is "Model legislation" that is followed across the country. For example, NY state is frequently the guiding state for insurance regulation. Legislative services may also find that similar law was knocked down by courts someplace. When a bill is heard in committee in a public hearing, experience in other states comes up as major testimony.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by Descant

What happens in other states is very important. When a rep drafts a bill, one of the first steps is for legislative services to research other states as well as past bills submitted in NH. On many subjects there is "Model legislation" that is followed across the country. For example, NY state is frequently the guiding state for insurance regulation. Legislative services may also find that similar law was knocked down by courts someplace. When a bill is heard in committee in a public hearing, experience in other states comes up as major testimony.

I’d be worried if we started modeling our laws after NY or California for example. Good to be informed by other legislation but lets not assume that just because another state passed a law its what’s best for NH.

Why not follow Minnesota which has far more lakes than NH and no 150’ law at all unless it’s an emergency vessel with its emergency lights on…


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.

If HB1562 were to by some miracle pass at the 300' mark... then I could see them moving all the boats including the wake boats to that mark.

But right now... its more like a game of picking winners and losers.
And we shouldn't be doing that.

I feel that 500' is ridiculous, and don't love 300' but could settle for it. I feel that its unfair to single out and punish surf boats, yet huge cruisers can pound the shores and docks with huge waves at 150'.

I don't see them going to 300' for everyone.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, there are two seperate wakesurfing bills. SB 431 and HB1390 . There was also a seperate PWC bill, HB1562, and that was voted ITL in committee.