Update to Lake Related Legislation

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

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 Alliance]

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 Alliance]

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 Alliance]

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 ???

[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.

[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 Alliance]

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.

[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 Alliance]

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!!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

Just imagine a Braun Bay overnight!!

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

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

Perfect.

[John Mercier]

Don't try to sugar-coated.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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….

Dan

[Descant]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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….

Dan

Following FLL?

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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….

Dan

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Descant

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

Hotel California.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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….

Dan

The concept of the temporary houseboats is like bob houses on the frozen lake.

The State should not see any significant tax advantages.
Promoting it as a revenue producer is sugar coating it at best.
There may be a jump in local revenue, but that would be offset by where the revenue would have been if this option doesn't exist.

It is a push/pull.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

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 Alliance]

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.

[longislander]

[I]"As of today, January 27, 2024, there is no specific date scheduled for NH House Bill HB1390 to be discussed in the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee. However, based on the available information, it's likely to happen soon:

Current Status: HB1390 was introduced on December 6, 2023, and referred to the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee on January 3, 2024. This means it is currently pending review by the committee.
Committee Schedule: The committee's next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, January 31st, 2024, at 11:00 AM. While the agenda for this meeting has not been officially released yet, there is a possibility that HB1390 could be included.
Previous Activity: While HB1390 hasn't been formally discussed yet, the committee did recently hold a hearing on another bill related to environmental regulations on January 22nd, 2024. This suggests an increased focus on natural resource issues, which could make HB1390's discussion more likely in the near future.
Therefore, while there's no confirmed date yet, keep an eye on the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee's agenda for their January 31st meeting, as HB1390 is likely to be discussed soon. You can find the committee's schedule and agendas on the New Hampshire state website: https://ballotpedia.org/Resources,_R...epresentatives

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

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/

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tummyman

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

Tummyman: sorry for the long answer.

Sending your comments should be done without delay. Controversial bills will generate emails in large numbers, including many from "auto-maii" websites from lobbying groups across the country. Waiting 'til the end means your email may get lost in the flood. Important to put for/against and 2-3 words about topic in the subject line. A phone call is more effective than an email and you may learn that your rep is already supporting your position. If so, send a "thank-you" confirming that support.

Knowing how to read the calendar is helpful, as it uses many unique terms like executive session, early bill, crossover, etc. Many committees will say in the calendar that the committee may meet in Executive session at any time, as time allows. This could mean a vote, or simply discussion, a report from a sub-committee or a proposed amendment. An "early bill" usually means one that goes to a second committee, such as Finance. Since the bill has already had a public hearing, the second committee may or may not have a second public hearing, but they will likely hear from the prime sponsor and somebody to represent the vote(s) of the first committee. There has to be an affirmative vote on the floor (OTP or OTP/A) before the scheduling with the second committee.

Last point: Reps have lives and families too. That means dinners and Boy Scouts, etc. S/he may not be home or read email the night before a hearing or a floor session. If you wait until the day/night before, you're too late. Things move very quickly at this time of year.

[John Mercier]

When writing the email.
Attach one name at a time... multiples may end up in a SPAM folder.
You can copy and paste the field, but don't use a form letter as that has less impact.
Send to the email address of each of the sponsors of the bill, and to each of the committee members.

If you have the time, attend the public hearing and sign in either in support or opposition... and fill out the card if you feel the need to speak.

Keep any testimony on track, you can even read it from a paper if that helps.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

My husband has tried to reach one of the sponsors of the bill, a Mr. Griffin, I believe, and has had no response from him. We both shudder at the thought of more lake pollution. Unfortunately, some people are ignorant about the importance of keeping our waterways clean, and some just don’t give a healthy damn just as long as they are having fun and the keg doesn’t run dry. Hopefully, the bill will be defeated.

[John Mercier]

Usually a sponsor of a bill cannot be swayed from their support of the bill... so really not someone the opposition should try to contact.

It is up to the members of the House when it hits the floor. Most often, an ITL from the committee will signal its defeat.

[Major]

Irwin Marine has weighed in. I received this email message today.


TOMORROW! Public Hearing for SB 431:
Support the Wake Responsibly Campaign

SB 431, the bill that codifies the 200 ft setback distance for wake surfing promoted by the Wake Responsibly campaign, is scheduled for a public hearing on TUESDAY, JANUARY 30TH AT 1:00pm before the Senate Transportation Committee in Room 101 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.

The NH Marine Trades Association, Water Sports Industry Association, National Marine Manufacturer Association, USA Waterski & Wake Sports, Lakes Region Tourism Association and many boating families support SB 431 as a reasonable regulation for wake surfing that DOES NOT define any boat type or ban the sport. The 200 ft setback has passed in a couple of other states to date (TN, SC, GA) and is backed by a peer-reviewed scientific study. This bipartisan effort promotes the “Buffer NOT Ban” approach. We will continue to oppose HB 1301 & HB 1390, which would severely limit or potentially eliminate the ability to wake surf, but support SB 431. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/remotecommittee/senate.aspx

How Can Boaters Support SB 431?
1. Testify in Support. We are pleased that we already have a number of boaters able to testify in favor of SB 431. All of the Senate Transportation Committee members are co-sponsors of the bill, so we hope it is a good hearing.
2. Attend and Stand in Support of SB 431. There will be sign-in sheets for those who want to support SB 431 but not testify. If you are able to attend the hearing, please do. The more people that stand in support, the better!
3. Register Support on SB 431 through the On-Line Sign-In Portal: See below for directions. We were very successful in the sign-in against HB 1301. Let’s do the same to SUPPORT SB 431:
- Utilize the sign-in form located on the General Court website: CLICK HERE TO ACCESS FORM.
- You are encouraged to sign-in well in advance of the hearing. This online form will allow you to sign in on a bill as soon as it has been scheduled for a hearing.
1. Click on the date that the bill you are interested in is being heard: January 30th.
2. Under the drop-down menus:
Select the committee that is hearing the bill: Senate Transportation.
Select the bill you are interested in: Senate Bill 431.
Select a category: Member of the Public.
3. If you are representing an entity or someone other than yourself, enter that information.
4. Indicate that you SUPPORT the bill by checking the appropriate circle.
5. Click continue.
6. Enter your name and contact information.
7. Click continue.
8. Carefully review that the information you have entered is correct. If it is correct, check the box and click continue. This completes the sign in process.
** Note – there is an option to email the full Committee with a statement. If you decide to email them, be positive – note that all of the members are co-sponsors of SB 431! Thank them! **

[Biggd]

I'm sure that any marina that sells wake boats is going to be against any legislation that will affect sales.

[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.

[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.

[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]

I knew paying attention in elementary school would come in handy.

[longislander]

... and those that get to go high school really excel!

Their report is printed in the House calendar published Feb 2 for full house consideration on Thursday Feb 8. T

Feb 4-10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEETING SCHEDULE

Where is it?

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...yschedule.aspx


The Bill on the Floor of the House or Senate
All bills may be acted upon the day after the committee report appears in the House Calendar. Any amendments proposed by the committee which make material changes in the original bill must be printed in the calendar.

Action on bills is taken on the second reading on the floor of the House or Senate. Debate, if any, is held and amendments are made at this time.

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.



A bill is considered killed when the
House or Senate votes to adopt the committee report of "Inexpedient to legislate,"

https://www4.des.state.nh.us/blogs/r...omes-a-Law.pdf


So why have a committee if not to follow the recommendation? Really important stuff, huh!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by longislander

... and those that get to go high school really excel!




Feb 4-10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEETING SCHEDULE

Where is it?

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...yschedule.aspx


The Bill on the Floor of the House or Senate
All bills may be acted upon the day after the committee report appears in the House Calendar. Any amendments proposed by the committee which make material changes in the original bill must be printed in the calendar.

Action on bills is taken on the second reading on the floor of the House or Senate. Debate, if any, is held and amendments are made at this time.

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.



A bill is considered killed when the
House or Senate votes to adopt the committee report of "Inexpedient to legislate,"

https://www4.des.state.nh.us/blogs/r...omes-a-Law.pdf


So why have a committee if not to follow the recommendation? Really important stuff, huh!

First Where is it?
You asked "Where is it" then posted the link to the House page. So far, so good. From there, click on Calendars. On the pull down, click on Calendars and Journals. Then select Calendars, 2024 and #5 from the menu blocks. The "View PDF". And go to page 15.

Second, Why have committees?
Each session (January to June 30, there are over 1000 bills filed in the House. hundreds more in the Senate. Each is entitled to a public hearing and a vote on the floor. Committees in NH cannot kill a bill with a pocket veto as they do in other jurisdictions. The committees do the screening, amending, combining, etc. to take the bills to the floor. Some bills go onto the consent calendar where 50-60 bills may be acted on with one single voice vote. Then the remaining bills on the calendar are acted on individually. While each bill on the regular calendar has an individual vote, not all bills are debated. That's up to members who wish to, or decline, to speak.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

... and those that get to go high school really excel!




Feb 4-10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEETING SCHEDULE

Where is it?

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...yschedule.aspx


The Bill on the Floor of the House or Senate
All bills may be acted upon the day after the committee report appears in the House Calendar. Any amendments proposed by the committee which make material changes in the original bill must be printed in the calendar.

Action on bills is taken on the second reading on the floor of the House or Senate. Debate, if any, is held and amendments are made at this time.

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.



A bill is considered killed when the
House or Senate votes to adopt the committee report of "Inexpedient to legislate,"

https://www4.des.state.nh.us/blogs/r...omes-a-Law.pdf


So why have a committee if not to follow the recommendation? Really important stuff, huh!

High school didn't teach you why we have committees?

[longislander]

This is what it says:

HB1049, relative to the prohibition on overnight mooring of houseboats. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Suzanne Vail for Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill repeals RSA 270-A:3 to allow owners and operators of houseboats to drop anchor and/or beach a houseboat overnight on water body that is held in public trust (inland waters over 10 acres in size), as long as the boat has both temporary or permanent sleeping facilities and a temporary or permanent sanitation facility that would have to be pumped out or dumped once back on land, thus not in the lake. The committee learned that this repeal lifts restrictions on houseboats in a broad manner. It applies to any boat, from any place, mooring anywhere on any inland waterway greater than 10 acres in size, for any reason and any length of time. This might open up inland waterways to houseboats parked indefinitely as housing, commercial enterprises such as restaurants, short term rentals, and other difficulties, as there is no restricted usage or provision for mooring and beaching of houseboats. Vote 18-2.

It says :

The House will meet on Thursday, February 8th at 10:00 a.m

Does it mean they met regarding HB1049?

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEETING SCHEDULE

Where is it on Feb.8

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hou...yschedule.aspx

NOTICE
There will be a Republican Caucus on Thursday, February 8th at 9:00 a.m. in Representatives Hall

NOTICE
There will be a Democratic Caucus on Thursday, February 8th at 9:00 a.m. in the State House Cafeteria.

Again, where is it scheduled for reconsideration?

It lookslike an amendment was made on Feb. 2

Floor Amendment to HB 1049
Amend the bill by replacing section 1 with the following:
1 House Boats; Overnight Mooring Prohibited. RSA 270-A:3 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. Unless it is allowed pursuant to RSA 270-A:2, no houseboat, as defined in RSA 270-A:1, II, shall be anchored
overnight for more than 3 consecutive nights in any one-week period.

This will overturn the ITL? Sure!

Not why we have committees ... why not follow committee recommendations.

How many "inexpedient to legislative" bills have become law! Number or a percentage will do.

[longislander]

High school didn't teach you why we have committees?

Didn't have to to ... already knew ... even in grade school.
Didn't learn any more about why we have committees or better yet ... what do committees do, especially when appointed or elected officials.

Can't believe, no help in comprehension from my three degrees in Business including an MBA and thirty years in industry, (yes college degrees .. thanks to Veteran benefits). My paralegal certification hasn't help either. Well maybe, a few times I've been in court pro se and prevailed .

I remember now why I shouldn't comment on this forum. Keep up the info on the new retaurants and businesses, at least that's useful.

[John Mercier]

By breaking it down into committees, the more bills can be reviewed in depth in each session. Especially important when similar or opposing bills are entering.


They can get roughly 14 times the work done, than if the public spoke on the floor for each bill.

The committee does most of the work roughing out the bill; but it is not the final word. If it was... a large part of the State residents would have no representation on the final bill.

[Chubby]

500' is a good policy with reasonable assumptions.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Amendment to HB1049!
We've just heard that an amendment has been added to HB1049. The amendment states that “no houseboat shall be anchored overnight for more than three consecutive nights in a one week period."

Enforcement, especially with the new proposed amendment, is highly problematic. How does our already overstretched and understaffed Marine Patrol keep track of which boat has moored which night in what changing location?

We've heard from a local State Representative that this bill and amendment will likely go nowhere. However, if you haven't yet contacted the full House, it is important to do so, and to voice your opposition to this amendment as well. If you have already emailed the full House, thank you, but feel free to email again.

It's extremely important to contact the full New Hampshire House to voice your opposition to this bill before Thursday.
You may copy all 21 committees at once (see below), then cut and paste it in the “to” section at the top of your email. You may then either copy your previous email to the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee or draft a new email. This one email will then go to all 400 state reps. Please begin your email with Dear NH Representative and remember to include your NH town(s) where you live or visit.

CFL@leg.state.nh.us

HouseCommerceCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety@leg.state.nh.u s

HouseEducationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseElectionLawCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseEnvironmentandAgricultureCommit....state. nh.us

HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdminist....sta te.nh.us

HouseFinanceCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseFishandGameCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HHSEA@leg.state.nh.us

HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseLaborIndustrialandRehabilitativ.... state.nh.us

HouseLegislativeAdministration@leg.state.nh.us

HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us

HousePublicWorksandHighways@leg.state.nh.us
HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopme....state.n h.us

HouseRulesCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us

HouseState-FederalRelationsandVetera...eg.state.nh.us

HouseTransportationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

HouseWaysAndMeansCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

Your comments should address impacts to water quality, potential safety issues with regards to navigational hazards, and potential noise disturbances during the night. Please share this with others who may be interested.

Interactive Map of 150, 200 and 500 ft on Lake Winni

[John Mercier]

The objection will go by the wayside.
They will adopt the three day passes that the OHRV/snowmobiles use in other States.

Special permits with dates listed and an added charge for the cost of enforcement.

We saw this many decades ago when the cost of snowmobiling took a dramatic rise... finally settled out to a special weekend with Maine that would open reciprocity to solve all the on and off.

For the OHRV, special weekend event permits were granted.

The objection to this needs to be a much firm ground or it will just resurface during the next cycle.

[ITD]

Thanks for the updates Lake Winni assoc., to the juvenile comments, please knock it off, or get a room. Nobody wants to read that crap.

[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.

[martbri7]

Originally Posted by tis

Just imagine a Braun Bay overnight!!

Hold my beer watch this !! 😂

[tis]

Not only would it be a free vacation not having to pay taxes or for a slip, how could Marine Patrol possible monitor the boats to see if they left after three days. This is ridiculous.

[John Mercier]

More than likely they will adopt the permit system used for the OHRV and Snowmobiles.

It will have the dates on them and be posted in a way to be noticed.

That permit will cover costs of enforcement/etc and ease the process.

It does make lakefront vacations cheaper... which I think is there point.

The only problem I can really see... and haven't really thought deeply about this... is that there seems to be no limitations to the numbers permitted.
That could/will, in my mind, create problems over time should this take off.

Obviously limiting the numbers really just takes us back to where we are currently, with not everyone being able to access when they want, how they want.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Thank you everyone for contacting the House of Representatives. We listened in today to the full House session, and a motion was made for an Indefinite Postponement of HB1049. This effectively kills it, as it will not advance to the Senate. The vote was 324 in support to 53 opposed. The representative who made the motion stated that they had received overwhelming opposition to this bill. Thank you for your support!

[John Mercier]

53 is a lot more than I expected.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc

Thank you everyone for contacting the House of Representatives. We listened in today to the full House session, and a motion was made for an Indefinite Postponement of HB1049. This effectively kills it, as it will not advance to the Senate. The vote was 324 in support to 53 opposed. The representative who made the motion stated that they had received overwhelming opposition to this bill. Thank you for your support!

Great job by the Lake Winnipesaukee Association staff in organizing the opposition. Thanks!

[John Mercier]

It was an extremely flawed bill.
They had no answer for the number of vessels that might be considered. Areas that may be used - navigation could become a nightmare. Or even the fact that once launched, they trailer may be occupying the public parking for the entire weekend blocking out others.

I found it unfathomable that 53 legislators could not see that even the basic issues could not be resolved in this session regardless of how many committee hours were expended on this one item.

They should have used a study committee bill.

[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 Alliance]

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!!