Lake Related Legislation

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

New Hampshire lawmakers will spend the next several months reviewing and voting on over 1,000 bills, many of which could have significant implications for the state's surface waters, including Lake Winnipesaukee. The Lake Winnipesaukee Association (LWA) actively advocates for public policy that promotes the conservation, preservation, and protection of Lake Winni and it's surrounding watershed.

As part of our advocacy efforts we are monitoring newly proposed bills, offering updates, and strongly encouraging the public to voice their opinions to their state representatives. As a part of this initiative we have recently updated the Take Action page on our website featuring the bills we are actively tracking, LWA's stance, and the status of each.

Building on the responses received from our previous cyanobacteria post, we thought it would be beneficial to establish this thread as a platform to facilitate lake related legislative conversation. This will help avoid unnecessary clutter on the general discussion page by consolidating discussions in one place. On the Take Action page of our website I have taken the time to link each bill we are tracking with the recordings of the hearings held to date, and I will continue updating them as we progress through the session. The benefit of using the links on our site is that the recordings start at the beginning of the bill discussion rather than the beginning of the hearing. If you would like to watch all live or past hearings you can do so at the NH House of Representatives Committee Streaming Channel on YouTube. The Senate has their own channel too.

Thank you for taking the time to use your voice and speak up in support of our lakes. I look forward to an engaging and lively discussion!

Waves of appreciation,
Bree Rossiter
Conservation Program Manager
LWA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what's happened since the session kicked off on Jan. 3rd?

SB 394-FN-A: Relative to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.
This bill proposes allocating $1M to the Cyanobacteria Fund, with $350K specifically for Lake Kanasatka. The Senate Finance Committee hearing was held on January 4. Chairman James Gray indicated that the committee has numerous bills with appropriations in this session, and they do not intend to move forward with any of the bills proposed until they have a better idea of the fiscal budget. A decision would most likely be made closer to crossover in April.

HB1293: Relative to prohibiting the use of certain fertilizers using phosphorus.
This bill proposes to limit phosphorus fertilizer application and times, make it applicable only for certain uses, requires retailers to post about the impacts of Phosphorus fertilizer to our waterbodies, prohibit online sales and requires additional setbacks including from drain applications. The House Environment and Ag Committee hearing was held on January 8. The committee is seeking input from the from the Dept. of Agriculture and the Farm Bureau prior to moving forward. Remote sign-in numbers indicate that 227 signed in support of the bill online, with 1 opposed and 1 neutral.

HB1294:Relative to prohibiting the state of New Hampshire from enforcing the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill proposes to nullify statewide enforcement of the EPA because of issues in Rochester and Milton. The House Environment and Ag Committee hearing was held on January 8. According to the prime sponsor, EPA is claiming that nitrogen from the wastewater treatment plant is entering the Salmon Falls River and killing a species of snail in the Great Bay and the EPA is asking Milton to remediate without evidence of the effluent disposal and impacts. The committee asked various questions about the bill and closed the hearing. Remote sign-in numbers indicate that 9 signed in support of the bill online, with 66 opposed and 1 neutral.

CACR14: Relating to the environment and natural resources.
The House Environment and Ag Committee hearing was held on January 8. This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution would require the state to maintain a clean and healthful environment and protect New Hampshire's natural resources for present and future generations. The prime sponsor noted that for a constitutional amendment to pass it needs 240 votes in the house and 60% of Senate or 15 votes, and 2/3 vote of the people. The purpose of this bill is to solidify the protection and preservation of our environment while providing direction for state agencies to clarify their mission(s). The committee discussed the purpose of the bill and possible text amendments. Remote sign-in numbers indicate that 41 signed in support of the bill online, with 4 opposed and 0 neutral.

HB1301: Relative to wake surfing on public bodies of water.
This bill proposes that any group of 25 residents or property owners will be able to petition the department of safety to restrict or prohibit wake surfing on a public water body, or a portion thereof, pursuant to a petition and hearing process. This bill would allow residents to petition the Department of Safety (DOS). Once the petition is submitted and reviewed by DOS, a hearing date would be set and all property owners and those with deeded access would be notified. DOS would review shoreline impacts, size/depth of the waterbody and other factors that would ensure access, safety and appropriate use for all. The House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee hearing was held today, January 10. NHDES, NH LAKES and numerous individuals from lakes around the state spoke in support, while other members of the public, a summer camp director and the NH Marine Trades Association and Watersport Industry Association in opposition. Remote sign-in numbers indicate that 399 signed in support of the bill online, with 687 opposed and 2 neutral.

HB1103: Relative to revising the penalties of the shoreland protection act.
This bill proposes to amend the penalties section of the the shoreland protection act and make it less difficult for NHDES to enforce violations. As the act currently reads persons that violate the act and damage the public waterway who, after being notified by NHDES and fail to make a good faith effort to remediate or restore the issue, will be subject to penalties. This bill removes the hoops that NHDES has to jump through to issue those fines, including proving that the violation caused damage or that the violator make a good faith effort to correct the problem before issuing a fine. The House Resources, Restoration and Development hearing is scheduled for Jan 17, LOB 305 at 1pm.

HB1113: Relative to shoreland septic systems.
This bill modifies requirements for site assessments of shoreland septic systems when a property is sold. If system is not approved by NHDES or was approved more than 20 years ago, a detailed septic evaluation by a NH permitted septic system designer would be required. If the system is found in failure, NHDES and the local health officer(s) must be notified and this must be included on the site assessment report. Failed systems would need to be replaced prior to close of sale. The House Resources, Restoration and Development hearing is scheduled for Jan 17, LOB 305 at 2pm.

[ishoot308]

I sincerely thank you for taking the time to post this information on a public forum such as this!!

Dan

[ApS]

HB1301: Relative to wake surfing on public bodies of water.
This bill proposes that any group of 25 residents or property owners will be able to petition the department of safety to restrict or prohibit wake surfing on a public water body, or a portion thereof, pursuant to a petition and hearing process. This bill would allow residents to petition the Department of Safety (DOS). Once the petition is submitted and reviewed by DOS, a hearing date would be set and all property owners and those with deeded access would be notified. DOS would review shoreline impacts, size/depth of the waterbody and other factors that would ensure access, safety and appropriate use for all. The House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee hearing was held today, January 10. NHDES, NH LAKES and numerous individuals from lakes around the state spoke in support, while other members of the public, a summer camp director and the NH Marine Trades Association and Watersport Industry Association in opposition.
Remote sign-in numbers indicate that 399 signed in support of the bill online, with 687 opposed and 2 neutral.

Those property owners concerned with shoreline erosion shouldn't be discouraged from petitioning by this apparent high number of sign-in votes.

Electronic votes from across the country, Canada, and even Australia, perpetrated "Skew The Vote" the last time prohibitions were to be placed on Lake Winnipesaukee. (Not to mention "Marine Trades").

The advent of "bots" and, more recently, AI (Artificial Intelligence) add numbers where they don't belong. In-Person appearances are the most important way to affect "numbers".

In other words, "Stay the course".

[John Mercier]

They could possibly do it through RSA 270:12.
The restriction would be broader, but would affect the desire to operate in a ill-mannered approach in those areas.

Simply petition, for ''no wake'' within 300 feet of a shoreline.
You would need to go from water body to water body, but it could be done.

If 300 feet doesn't resolve the issue, go further.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by ApS

Those property owners concerned with shoreline erosion shouldn't be discouraged from petitioning by this apparent high number of sign-in votes.

Electronic votes from across the country, Canada, and even Australia, perpetrated "Skew The Vote" the last time prohibitions were to be placed on Lake Winnipesaukee. (Not to mention "Marine Trades").

The advent of "bots" and, more recently, AI (Artificial Intelligence) add numbers where they don't belong. In-Person appearances are the most important way to affect "numbers".

In other words, "Stay the course".

I’d love to understand the details behind this claim that these electronic votes, for either side, are not actually humans using the system put in place by our government to indicate their opinion. Are you suggesting that voter fraud is real?


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

I’d love to understand the details behind this claim that these electronic votes, for either side, are not actually humans using the system put in place by our government to indicate their opinion. Are you suggesting that voter fraud is real?


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

He isn't suggesting that they are not humans.
Just that anyone including non-residents can electronically sign in support or opposed, they do not actually have to appear or speak before the committee.

Also it is not a vote. The committee takes public comment, including this, and makes its decision in Executive Session.
Depending on the outcome the committee position goes before the full chamber in various formats... that is the vote that counts.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They could possibly do it through RSA 270:12.
The restriction would be broader, but would affect the desire to operate in a ill-mannered approach in those areas.

Simply petition, for ''no wake'' within 300 feet of a shoreline.
You would need to go from water body to water body, but it could be done.

If 300 feet doesn't resolve the issue, go further.

It would have to be enforced. This certainly isn't:

No person shall operate a ski craft in a cove, as designated by the commissioner, or within 300 feet of shore, except as provided in paragraph VIII or pursuant to RSA 270:74-a, V. For the purpose of this paragraph "cove'' is defined as a bay or inlet which at its widest point does not exceed 1,000 linear feet. VIII.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

He isn't suggesting that they are not humans.
Just that anyone including non-residents can electronically sign in support or opposed, they do not actually have to appear or speak before the committee.

Also it is not a vote. The committee takes public comment, including this, and makes its decision in Executive Session.
Depending on the outcome the committee position goes before the full chamber in various formats... that is the vote that counts.

Double check the original comment John. He uses the term vote and implies that it is AI and Bots doing the “voting”.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by tis

It would have to be enforced. This certainly isn't:

No person shall operate a ski craft in a cove, as designated by the commissioner, or within 300 feet of shore, except as provided in paragraph VIII or pursuant to RSA 270:74-a, V. For the purpose of this paragraph "cove'' is defined as a bay or inlet which at its widest point does not exceed 1,000 linear feet. VIII.

Some people forget that a "ski craft" is defined in New Hampshire law as a craft capable of carrying the operator and one passenger. What we usually see on the lake are jet skis with a capacity of three. Thus, the regular boating laws apply, not the regulations for a ski craft.

As an example, you are not required to wear a life jacket on a jet ski, like on a boat you just have to have it available. I am not suggesting that not wearing a life jacket is a good idea, just pointing out that it is not a requirement.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Some people forget that a "ski craft" is defined in New Hampshire law as a craft capable of carrying the operator and one passenger. What we usually see on the lake are jet skis with a capacity of three. Thus, the regular boating laws apply, not the regulations for a ski craft.

As an example, you are not required to wear a life jacket on a jet ski, like on a boat you just have to have it available. I am not suggesting that not wearing a life jacket is a good idea, just pointing out that it is not a requirement.

You are exactly right, most of what we see are "boats". But I doubt if many that aren't "boats" even know about the law.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

I’d love to understand the details behind this claim that these electronic votes, for either side, are not actually humans using the system put in place by our government to indicate their opinion. Are you suggesting that voter fraud is real?

Yes and no.

Several years ago, you could go to certain websites and read, "Erase your cookies and vote again and again." Later, those websites "went dark", charged a fee, and one's pending membership was screened for favorable posts. Scream and Fly and Offshore Only websites come to mind, but many allied sites--feeling threatened--undoubtedly cast additional fraudulent "electronic votes". (Allies such as snowmobile websites, in the same years, faced restrictions upon operating across open water).

A recent electronic-voting civil lawsuit resulted in a national news organization being fined $¾ Billion, with a star anchor-reporter being muzzled indefinitely.

"Bots" and "AI" have crept-in in recent years. Bots are a real threat: Entire nations are involved!

Artificial Intelligence is still in relative infancy, so its effects are still being measured.

Fans of Mixed Martial Arts have seen genuine MMA robots hammering experts badly.

Those "in-the- know" are saying AI will result in better understanding of the world around us. As for voting integrity, the jury is still out.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Double check the original comment John. He uses the term vote and implies that it is AI and Bots doing the “voting”.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt... but he seems to have doubled-down.

It is plausible to electronically vote more than once... using the same computer and a fake name. Even the sign in sheets are dubious in that manner.
But generally the committee listens more to the details than the voices; or comes in a with a pre-existing mindset that means their vote is already locked in. I see the latter more often than the first, and it predominates the floor vote.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by tis

It would have to be enforced. This certainly isn't:

No person shall operate a ski craft in a cove, as designated by the commissioner, or within 300 feet of shore, except as provided in paragraph VIII or pursuant to RSA 270:74-a, V. For the purpose of this paragraph "cove'' is defined as a bay or inlet which at its widest point does not exceed 1,000 linear feet. VIII.

Tis...

Never mind... Tilton already pointed this out.

The devil is in the details... look up the definition of "ski craft" in the NH RSA's... in this case the term "ski craft" references old school 2 person PWC jet ski type of watercraft less than 13' in length. Modern PWC watercraft are classified as boats and thus not subject to the rule.

In any case... HB1301 will most likely die in committee. It's not a good idea to give 25 landowners control of a public park. We already see how this works with the "surprise" no rafting zones that seem to pop up every year.

Woodsy

[camp guy]

I haven't analyzed these posts very carefully, but I can say that as "intelligence" increases (i.e., 'bots' and AI), so does the need for IN PERSON VOTING, with VOTER ID CARDS.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Are you suggesting that voter fraud is real?

Best to take the voter fraud to some political forum.