Natural Resources & Energy Committee reviews costs, implementation steps for chloride-reduction bill

The Natural Resources & Energy Committee on Feb. 11 reviewed the fiscal and implementation questions in S.29, a bill that would establish a certification program and other measures intended to reduce chloride contamination of the state’s waters.

The committee asked the Legislative Joint Fiscal Office to present preliminary fiscal considerations for the bill. "The Joint Fiscal Office has prepared a memo identifying the preliminary fiscal considerations pertaining to this bill," said James W., fiscal analyst, Joint Fiscal Office, as he opened the presentation.

Committee members focused on three practical issues: the bill’s initial $250,000 appropriation, how much ongoing state staff time or contracting would be required, and how implementation would affect municipalities and private actors that apply salt and de-icing materials.

James W. said the memo separates direct state fiscal impacts from indirect impacts borne by municipalities and private parties. Direct costs identified in the memo include a proposed $250,000 appropriation for a third-party contractor to assist with implementing a certification program and the potential for additional Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) staff time for rulemaking, contracting and enforcement. "This is expected to be a base cost that will recur in future years as well," James W. said.

The memo also flagged possible direct costs to the state to cover uncovered state-owned salt and sand storage facilities by the statutory deadlines. According to testimony, the Agency of Transportation reported that 100% of state-owned salt storage facilities are already covered and that nine sand storage facilities exist, of which one is mixed with salts for moisture control. The committee discussed that the number of state facilities needing covers could therefore range from one to nine depending on the bill’s final scope.

On funding, the bill as drafted directs the governor to propose certification fees for commercial applicators but contains no fee schedule. James W. noted New Hampshire’s comparable program is funded through participant certification fees and that its expenditures have ranged, based on public records reviewed by JFO staff, roughly from $50,000 to $130,000 per year; that program reportedly supports at least a part-time coordinator and could benefit from one to two full-time positions.

Committee members raised uncertainty about whether the $250,000 line in the bill should be designated for a private contractor, for a startup ANR position, or for a more generic "program" appropriation. One committee member urged that early funding be used to establish capacity within ANR (for example, a position to design standards and vendor selection) so the program can be ready for the statutory deadlines rather than contracting large-scale vendor work immediately.

The committee also discussed how monitoring and assessment rules affect whether water segments are listed as impaired. Members noted a policy question: monitoring that occurs near the point source can yield different impairment findings than monitoring done after mixing zones, and that choice affects classification and potential future obligations such as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The bill directs ANR to adopt best-management practices (BMPs) and to begin monitoring for chloride where state water segments exceed relevant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chronic thresholds.

Enforcement authority for the bill’s requirements would rely on existing ANR enforcement under Title 10, chapter 47, rather than creating new penalty provisions in the bill text; the committee discussed the statutory maximums that underpin delegated federal programs. The memo flagged that the bill’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certified applicators would impose administrative costs on municipalities and commercial applicators even if those costs are modest per entity.

Committee members also discussed potential grant eligibility language for private facilities, consultation with the Agency of Transportation (AOT) on standards and implementation, and the desirability of additional agency testimony—including from AOT and ANR—on monitoring practices, municipal compliance with the federal multisector general permit for stormwater, and the number of municipal salt sheds already covered.

The draft bill includes target dates for ANR procedures and rule adoption and for program milestones. Committee members indicated they want ANR to propose fees and provide more detailed implementation cost estimates in subsequent testimony and drafting rounds.

Next steps: committee members asked for additional agency input on monitoring locations and enforcement details, further discussion of whether the initial appropriation should be targeted to a vendor or to ANR staffing, and follow-up with New Hampshire program staff and AOT. No formal vote on the bill was recorded during the Feb. 11 session.