Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
Peter Leishman, the prime sponsor, introduces House Bill 629 as the result of a study committee formed in 2024, with assistance from the Department of Environmental Services Dam Bureau. The bill addresses the maintenance needs of New Hampshire's 276 dams, which require approximately $16 million in funding. He notes that the bill passed the Resources Committee unanimously (15-0) and the House Finance Committee (25-0) on a voice vote. Leishman emphasizes the importance of dams in maintaining lakes such as Winnipesaukee, Sunapee, and Newfound, and offers to answer questions. He also thanks his colleague Cindy Rosenwald.
HB629
Information Only00:09:17.986 - 9:20:23 AM
Corey Clark introduces himself and states that the Department of Environmental Services does not take a position on the bill. He is present to answer questions regarding the history of dam maintenance and funding, as well as specifics of the bill. He begins by addressing the fiscal note in response to prior questions.
HB629
Information Only00:10:35.277 - 9:21:41 AM
Clark explains the fiscal note for HB629, noting that funds from boat registrations will go directly into and out of the dam maintenance fund for repairs and projects. He addresses varying amounts due to administrative transfers via Department of Safety and fluctuating project needs. He provides historical context on New Hampshire's ownership of dams, originally built by private companies for mills in the 1800s-1900s, taken over by the state via the Water Resources Board in the 1920s-1960s as companies lost interest. Unlike other states, NH assumed many liabilities without private or community takeovers. He discusses past hydro leasing revenues covering costs until deregulation in 2000s reduced income, leading to fewer sites. Clark notes divestiture efforts through transfers to private owners or communities, examples like Warren dam rebuilt with FEMA and transferred to town. He mentions easement clarifications for repairs. On lake associations, some own dams like Forest Lake in Winchester, raising funds for repairs. He explains incentives for associations to maintain dams to preserve lake levels, noting impoundment effects and potential drops if dams fail, e.g., 20 feet for Pawtuckaway Lake.
HB1301
Support00:23:48.078 - 9:34:54 AM
McDonald explains HB1301 increases mooring fees on five major lakes (Winnipesaukee, Winnisquam, Squam, Newfound, Sunapee) and two others by petition, unchanged since mid-1980s. Half the increase funds cyanobacteria mitigation, half navigation safety. He compares to coastal mooring fees ($50 application + $15/foot, min $200). The fee supports processing and lake health amid growing cyanobacteria concerns.
HB1301
Information Only00:25:54.945 - 9:37:00 AM
Dunleavy provides background: Marine Patrol permits ~5,000 moorings yearly, 1,700 congregate (public/transient or associations/marinas, requiring Gov/Council approval) and rest individual (up to 4 for shorefront owners). Permits required on eight lakes (original five plus three by petition). No position on bill.
HB1301
Support00:28:12.928 - 9:39:18 AM
Lamoureux supports HB1301 for funding the nearly depleted Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund (passed recently). Lake associations back the increase as essential for battling blooms. She describes proactive efforts via Lake Friendly Living program: educating on septic maintenance, avoiding fertilizers. Notes local donations and matching funds already occur, but more state support needed.
HB1301
Information Only00:31:50.557 - 9:42:56 AM
Niels notes primary cyanobacteria sources are non-point pollution (runoff, failing septics, fertilizers, legacy sediments), not boats. HB1301 offers users a way to contribute via fees, as they enjoy the waters. Emphasizes need for diverse funding sources per 2023 plan; no position on bill.
HB1477
Support00:36:43.236 - 9:47:49 AM
McDonald supports HB1477 requiring $50 registration fee for seasonal platforms (e.g., inflatable rafts, swim platforms) on state-owned waters >10 acres, adjacent to shorefront properties. Funds split between Navigation Safety Fund (administers program) and Cyanobacteria Mitigation Fund (established 2021, ~$200k left, needs consistent revenue for grants/loans on remediation, stormwater, education, treatments). Estimates 12,500 platforms statewide, raising $625k/year. Clarifies it's a user fee, not tax; applies to anchored seasonal platforms, not temporary rafts. Examples: large inflatables cost $7k+, used May-Oct. Addresses questions on 'adjacent' (determined by Marine Patrol, likely <150ft), focuses on cyanobacteria as urgent issue vs. invasives; sees it as addressing constituent concerns on public waters.
HB1477
Information Only00:46:01.281 - 9:57:07 AM
Dunleavy explains current regulation of seasonal platforms via legislation/rulemaking after explosion in use; from simple rafts to advanced inflatables. Estimates >12,000 statewide, plus 5,000 moorings on eight lakes. Platforms need own anchoring; if pulled in nightly or attached to dock, may not require permit. 'Adjacent' case-by-case, considering navigation, depth (e.g., 150ft no-wake, safe depths). Mooring process: $125 initial/$25 renewal for shorefront owners with justification (e.g., multiple boats, rocky shore); funds Navigation Safety Fund for enforcement, education, aids. No fee currently for platforms/docks unless hazard. Estimates 25-30% lakefront owners have inflatables. Eight lakes regulated starting with majors, added by petition (e.g., Pleasant Lake denied). Navigation Safety Fund user-fee based (registrations), supports enforcement/aids; may need 2 more staff for permits, funded by fees.
HB1477
Support00:56:02.411 - 10:07:08 AM
Lamoureux supports HB1477 as reasonable user fee for private platforms on public waters; constituents willing to pay for Cyanobacteria Fund. Notes comprehensive plans exist (e.g., exotic species via boat fees; 2023 cyanobacteria plan recommends more funding). Diverse sources needed; lake users understand seriousness.
HB1477
Information Only00:58:19.024 - 10:09:25 AM
Niels provides handout; references 2023 cyanobacteria plan. Shoreland Protection Act regulates buffers (no fertilizers <25ft, limits tree removal/development; fines for violations). Cyanobacteria signals broader issues (nutrients/sediments); mitigation addresses runoff, erosion comprehensively for long-term health.
HB1602
Support01:06:36.018 - 10:17:42 AM
Representative Ebel, the prime sponsor of HB1602, introduced the bill to create a recycling program for batteries, emphasizing fire safety as the primary motivation due to hazards posed by lithium batteries in the waste stream. As chair of the State Solid Waste Working Group, she explained the two-year discussions leading to the bill, starting with a lithium battery disposal ban and evolving into a product stewardship model developed with battery manufacturers and stakeholders. The bill aims to promote fire safety, reduce property damage, protect solid waste workers and first responders, relieve property tax burdens, reduce toxic materials in landfills, and involves no taxes, fees, or state costs. She listed extensive supporters including Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Association of Fire Chiefs, Rechargeable Battery Association, various waste management companies, municipalities, and environmental organizations. Despite strong opposition, the House passed it bipartisansly. Addressing concerns about taxes, she clarified that the bill does not create a tax under common definitions, as costs are internalized by producers nationally, not passed to consumers or the state. She provided evidence that battery prices remain consistent regardless of stewardship programs in other states. Additional benefits include national security by recycling critical minerals to reduce reliance on China. The bill covers loose and removable lithium, rechargeable, and alkaline batteries, excluding e-waste and car batteries. She ended with a personal note on her father's firefighting service and a family fire experience, urging support to protect firefighters from toxic exposures.
HB1602
Support01:38:05.277 - 10:49:11 AM
Representative Bixby discussed the connection between extended producer responsibility (EPR) in HB1602 and free market principles. He explained that free markets rely on competition but can be gamed through cost externalization, such as producers offloading disposal costs onto consumers via property taxes or environmental damage. The bill addresses this by allowing battery producers to internalize end-of-life costs through a stewardship organization, creating a narrow antitrust exemption to enable industry cooperation without price collusion. This shifts costs from taxpayers and consumers to producers, reducing property taxes and improving recycling convenience. He noted that current drop-off sites are patchwork and exclude certain batteries, leading to improper disposal, and trusted prior research that the program won't harm local recycling businesses.
HB1602
Support01:46:58.250 - 10:58:04 AM
As a co-sponsor, Representative Barber focused on the financial impact in Hollis, where the transfer station's battery disposal costs rose from a $500 budget to $2,000 in one year—a 300% increase—paid by property taxes. Without the program, costs could reach $10,000–$15,000 over five years, exacerbating annual waste cost increases of 6–11%. Since the lithium-ion ban, towns bear collection, storage, and shipping expenses. HB1602 shifts these end-of-life costs to manufacturers, who already embed production costs in battery prices, providing tax relief to taxpayers who currently pay twice—once at purchase and again through local fees. She urged support for this straightforward solution benefiting towns and constituents.
HB1602
Support01:50:17.622 - 11:01:23 AM
Ben LaRush presented a letter of support from the New Hampshire Association of Fire Chiefs for HB1602, emphasizing fire prevention benefits. He highlighted incidents like EV and scooter fires, though not directly addressed by the bill, as scalable risks involving high-heat, fast-spreading fires. He shared a local incident at a Bristol school where a smartphone power bank entered thermal runaway, causing smoke and damage, which was mitigated by moving it outside and disposing in snow. LaRush stressed the growing prevalence of battery-operated devices and the need for a stewardship program to reduce fire risks at transfer facilities, where batteries face damage, poor ventilation, and environmental changes leading to thermal runaway. He urged support for the bill and offered to answer fire prevention questions.
HB1602
Support01:54:36.246 - 11:05:42 AM
Heidi Tremarco delivered joint comments from multiple environmental organizations strongly supporting HB1602. She noted the bill's broad benefits, including preventing fires at landfills and in waste streams, improving public safety, and protecting the environment from toxic substances like heavy metals and chemicals that contaminate soil, water, and air via leachate and incineration. Recycling batteries conserves resources, recovers valuable materials such as lithium, cobalt, copper, and steel, reduces mining needs, and lowers emissions compared to virgin material production. She urged the committee to support the bill and vote Ought to Pass, mentioning emailed comments for details.
HB1602
Support01:56:33.766 - 11:07:39 AM
Matt Buehler testified in support of HB1602, drawing from experiences at Waste Innovations' 52 East Coast sites, including Concord's waste energy facility and Londonderry hauling operations. He described fire issues from batteries in the waste stream, citing a significant fire at competitor Waste Management. Batteries often go undetected when large trucks dump 25-30 tons of MSW on tipping floors, getting damaged and exposed to oxygen, leading to fires as previously testified. He submitted written comments and reiterated support.
HB1602
Support01:58:31.692 - 11:09:37 AM
Carolyn Vurie, representing the New Hampshire Academy of Audiology, focused on hearing aid batteries as a key issue, though noting personal ties to fire service. She highlighted disposal challenges: batteries require quantities for acceptance, lack signage and advertising, leading to trash disposal. Different types include zinc for prescription aids, silver ion rechargeables handled in-office, and enclosed lithium-ion returned to manufacturers. A widespread program with signage and marketing would ease individual disposal without store-hopping or volume requirements. She praised New Hampshire's land as an asset, called the bill revenue neutral with minimal startup costs, and urged support as a wise investment.
HB1602
Information Only02:01:01.192 - 11:12:07 AM
Regan Bissonette provided information on battery management, noting NH Recycles' work with 90% of NH towns/cities on recycling. They recycled over 1.2 million pounds of electronics including batteries last year. Improper rechargeable battery disposal poses safety and cost concerns for municipalities. They held trainings on preventing and responding to lithium-ion fires at transfer stations. Examples include fires in Lee (2022, contained), Pelham (e-bike battery in scrap metal), Waste Management (building destroyed), Keene (multiple fires, one injuring firefighter with $400k damage), and Granite State Recycling (building destroyed, suspected battery cause). Costs rose after Call2Recycle ended free services due to no EPR law. Residents often ignore advice to go to stores like Staples/Home Depot, preferring transfer stations, incurring costs. Batteries in scrap metal cause fines ($16k+ to NH municipalities in two years) and rising insurance. Municipalities question why producers don't cover costs; many express interest in the bill. NH Recycles takes no position on legislation but provides relevant info.
HB1602
Support02:08:10.035 - 11:19:16 AM
Jason Lyon, recently retired after 35 years, testified on fire risks in rural areas like Wilmot, lacking nearby disposal sites like Home Depot or Staples. His department experienced lithium battery fires in compactors, where machinery compromises batteries, similar to vehicle crashes. Batteries are safe until damaged, leading to thermal runaway. Illegal disposal persists without accessible sites, risking local, transport, and recycling fires. Rural response delays with volunteer firefighters exacerbate damage. He noted fires in rural towns (Lee, Pelham) and travel burdens (45 minutes to hearing, 30+ to sites).
HB1602
Support02:11:37.835 - 11:22:43 AM
Brody Deshaies supported HB1602, agreeing with prior testimony from representatives and officials. He stressed rural access issues to big box stores (e.g., 40-45 minutes from Wolfboro), creating 'collection deserts' where lack of education leads to improper trash disposal and fire hazards. Transport to larger landfills (e.g., Turnkey in Rochester) spreads risks. Confirmed fires in Lee and Pelham from rechargeables; others suspected. Easier access deters illegal dumps, costing municipalities via insurance hikes and taxes. Costs are built into batteries; state participation allows reaping benefits. The bill prohibits sales of non-participating batteries, but association defers to industry on appropriateness, focusing on stewardship benefits like reduced costs/risks.
HB1602
Oppose02:17:17.806 - 11:28:23 AM
Representative Dan McGuire opposed HB1602, noting milder claims than in the House but disagreements remain. On fires: Bill covers batteries under 25 pounds except those locked in devices; alkaline batteries don't cause fires, lithium-ion (main risk) mostly exempted (e.g., car crashes, laptops illegal already). Public info campaign insufficient; signs at transfer stations could work. Creates costs on all batteries. On costs: Creates monopoly (page 9 exempts from antitrust), no regulation like PUC; no cost controls in application/report (page 8 allows confidentiality). Trades known costs for unknown, consumer-funded, risking exploitation.
HB1602
Information Only02:35:50.945 - 11:46:56 AM
Mike Wimsatt discussed product stewardship/EPR in NH's solid waste plan for safety, environmental, and cost reasons to divert wastes. NH has successful mercury thermostat EPR. Supported prior lithium-ion ban due to fire risks. Lithium-ion batteries risk fires when punctured/exposed in compactors or handling (e.g., witnessed laptop battery flaming). Any unprotected battery in waste can short-circuit near flammables, posing risks regardless of chemistry.
HB1602
Support02:39:47.038 - 11:50:53 AM
The speaker addressed retailer bans and monopolies. Retailers Association has no objection; ban ensures program integrity by preventing undermining via non-participating batteries. Vermont's program includes 264 producers covering 600+ brands. Consulted AG's office/DES attorney; no violation of laws, as no secretive price-setting; state can support public policy via EPR. Structure aligns with statutes/Constitution.
HB629
Oppose02:48:03.304 - 11:59:09 AM
Senator Sullivan moves for ITL, stating the bill is ill-timed as it would hurt lake users, especially with dams transitioning to private ownership.
HB1301
Oppose02:49:23.304 - 12:00:29 PM
Senator Murphy moves for ITL, arguing there is no reasonable nexus for the user fee as only 25% of people would pay but all lake users benefit; moorings may help against cyanobacteria; prefers waiting for broader solutions from the SB 598 cyanobacteria task force rather than band-aid fixes.
HB1301
Oppose02:50:36.215 - 12:01:42 PM
Senator Sullivan supports the ITL motion, agreeing to recognize the issue and seek long-term integrated solutions via the task force.
HB1477
Oppose02:51:44.953 - 12:02:50 PM
Senator Sullivan moves for ITL, describing the bill as nickel-and-diming lake residents who already pay higher taxes and have existing permitted docks; questions pressuring them further.
HB1477
Oppose02:52:45.433 - 12:03:51 PM
Senator Murphy supports ITL, reiterating the need to wait for the SB 598 task force to develop a comprehensive funding plan rather than disjointed programs; notes that even small 12x12 swim docks would now require permits and fees; emphasizes cyanobacteria issues stem from land runoff, not water activities; highlights potential need for two new positions for permitting.
HB1477
Support02:52:45.433 - 12:03:51 PM
Senator Roswell opposes the ITL motion, arguing the bill targets non-residents with large, potentially dangerous docks or towers, not lake residents.
HB1602
Oppose02:55:05.673 - 12:06:11 PM
Senator Murphy moves for ITL, stating the bill does not address human nature—caring individuals will recycle batteries anyway, while others will not; similar issues as with the paint bill.
HB1602
Oppose02:55:05.673 - 12:06:11 PM
Senator Sullivan supports ITL, noting ample existing battery recycling options through businesses; opposes the bill as it could put New Hampshire recycling businesses out of operation.