In what is becoming the year of water, senate and house committees heard testimony on a number of water bills. Thanks in large part to one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, NHPR’s Dan Gorenstein reports water issues are taking on new urgency.
Throughout the 5 ½ hours of testimony on one of the four water bills discussed at the statehouse yesterday, it snowed. So much that a storm warning was issued. For motorists, this snowstorm on the first day of spring was more than unwelcome. But for those with wells drying up due to the drought, the precipitation was a godsend. In the abundance of water measures, New Hampshire Democratic Representative Judith Spang sees multiple pieces of legislation merging.
Track 11
Basically what is happening is we are seeing the coming together this session of several things. One is the drought. Another is the proposal by USA Springs to extract a great quantity of water from an aquifer in the seacoast and export it for profit…and at the same time, our instream flow rules, where the state is trying to determine how much water we are going to be protecting in our rivers.
Spang says the drought serves as a wakeup call for the state. Many residents in Democratic Senator Caroline McCarley district didn’t need the drought as a reminder. Communities in and around Nottingham have balked at a water bottling plant proposal to pump 439 thousand gallons of water a day.
McCarley is the primary sponsor of a measure that would allow for more local input on permits from commercial groundwater users who want to pump at least 57,600 gallons of water daily. Senate Bill 410, which has continually been amended, mandates local towns affected by major withdrawals establish a committee to work with the Department of Environmental Services on the issue. It also requires those seeking a permit to secure a one million dollar bond, and pay other permitting costs.
:35 it does make a statement that when commercial uses of groundwater are presented, that they should have to meet a higher criteria, and higher standards than the public water suppliers, so we can eat live. So that is sig. It is not anti-business, but acknowledges that the state has some greater obligation to protect its citizens from losing a resource.
While McCarley suggests town and public water needs are better protected under the legislation, hydrologist and farmer Jim Grizzwald says individuals aren’t. He claims costs would be prohibitive to farmers and small businesses.
1:43 this bill creates too many layers of interest on the part of municipalities. Every municipality that is in this study area, which is very broadly defined, can have a stake in the permitting process. And even with some of the amendments, they still have a tremendous amount of influence. And can ask and require an applicant pay for a lot of studies which cost a lot of money. IN that case, someone with large pockets can handle it, someone in our case, with a small farm, can’t.
House Resources Committee members sent senate bill 410 to a subcommittee for further study.
Another water bill discussed yesterday calls for towns to interconnect their public water supplies. If approved, towns could then apply for state assistance. DES officials explain sharing water resources can help in times of drought or other such emergencies. And while the bill was studied for 18 months, head of the Senate Environment Committee, Republican Senator Carl Johnson, says he isn’t quite ready to sign off on it yet.
:10 in my view, it is another one of those comprehensive bills that came to my committee, rather late, and I think it is more prudent to take a longer look at the bill…
Johnson’s Committee voted 3-2 to send this bill back to study. But Governor Shaheen, who in addition to supporting Senate Bill 410, says she is having a hard time understanding why the senate committee action when no one testified against it.
1:44 in talking to some of the republican members of the senate, what they have told me is that it was nothing more than a partisan move.
And finally, house bill 1449. This addresses the question of instream flow rules. Currently, if two water users have a dispute, their only recourse is through the court system. Since the mid-1990’s DES has formally been working on instream flow rules that call for more community minded solutions. Political specialist Brian Hart with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, explains.
2:05 what the rules do is create negotiation process for all users to sit down at the table, and if and when the river falls underneath minimum flow level, we will underake this process of who is going to have to share the pain of reducing their uses.
Some state legislators are skeptical compromise between water users can be reached when competition for the resource is intense. So 1449 proposes the state offer a solution, but that recommendation would be approved by the full legislature. Republican Representative Richard Cooney says the instream flow rules are serious business.
:17 these rules are important, going to say who can take water out of the rivers, how much and when. And it also may have financial impact on the users, including public water supplies…
Cooney says because of the possibility of adverse economic impact and danger to the river’s habitat, it is important for politicians to safeguard this new innovative process. But the Forest Society’s Hart says giving the legislature oversight on the process takes out the science, removes local control, and inserts political influence.
11:25 what can happen is a major water user can talk to one of their representatives and other similar interests and say if this passes, it’s going to affect my ability to do that, and that sets a precedent for you rivers, we have to stop this in the legislature. That’s where the political influence comes in.
Lawmakers are expected to debate housebill 1449 when they convene in a full session later today. For NHPR News
