Update to Lake Related Legislation
 

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

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

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Septic Bill
 

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.

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??

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.

HB 1049: relative to the prohibition on overnight mooring of houseboats.
 

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Not for me
 

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.

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.

Rt 25 Center Harbor sewer main bust....again
 

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?

Overnight docks
 

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.

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.

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?

Link to the public hearing for more info from the constituents

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

Just imagine a Braun Bay overnight!!

With The Dive to provide music, food, toilets, etc. The state could make overnighting a real money maker...

Perfect. :laugh::laugh:

Don't try to sugar-coated.

Yo John…try replying to the post your referring to…your post are ridiculously hard to figure out who you are replying to….i know your smart enough to do that….:eek::eek:

Dan

Following FLL?

I am glad I am not the only stupid one that didn't get it.

Hotel California.:emb: