Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Dams Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study committee warns New Hampshire faces large shortfall to maintain state‑owned dams; proposal to levy shorefront fee draws opposition
Summary
Peter Leishman summarized a study committee finding that New Hampshire owns 276 dams and may need hundreds of millions to rehabilitate them; the committee proposed a shorefront fee on taxable waterfront created by state impoundments, prompting opposition from farmers, conservation groups and landowners.
CONCORD — Representative Peter Leishman told the Resources committee a legislative study found the state owns 276 dams and faces a major funding gap to keep those structures safe and operable.
Leishman said the dam portfolio includes 64 high‑hazard structures (failure could threaten lives), 34 significant‑hazard dams and many smaller impoundments. He told lawmakers repair and rehabilitation costs across the portfolio could exceed $400 million; current annual revenues earmarked for dam maintenance average about $7 million and are insufficient to meet a 50‑year rehabilitation schedule, which the committee estimated would require about $16 million per year.
The study committee considered multiple revenue options and recommended a targeted shorefront fee assessed on taxable waterfront frontage created by state‑owned impoundments. The draft mechanism proposed a per‑linear‑foot fee (sponsors cited a historical calculation equating to roughly $1.58 per linear foot in prior analysis) and exemptions for conservation land and certain nonprofit shorefront.
Witnesses at the hearing raised sharp objections. Private landowners, the New Hampshire Farm Bureau and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests said the proposal would burden landowners who keep property in current use and conservation status and could unintentionally penalize open‑space owners who provide environmental benefits. A timberland owner estimated the fee could cost his client tens of thousands of dollars annually for properties that are conserved and not developed.
DES Commissioner Bob Scott and Dam Bureau Chief Corey Clark described the background: dam‑maintenance revenue has declined with the loss of hydropower lease income and the aging of hydropower contracts. Clark said hydropower revenue once helped fund the Dam Maintenance Fund but declined after power‑purchase restructuring in the early 2000s; DES currently receives modest lease income (roughly $600,000 combined) and capital appropriations for major repairs.
Leaders said options include decommissioning some dams; Leishman acknowledged removal can be costly and politically sensitive and noted that removing small impoundments would change landscapes and local uses. The committee debated whether downstream beneficiaries of flood‑control dams should share costs; sponsors said they focused the shorefront fee on owners who directly benefit from waterfront impoundments rather than all downstream communities.
Why it matters: State‑owned dams range from recreational impoundments to flood‑control structures. Safety standards for high‑hazard dams are strict; failure or deferred maintenance can threaten property and lives. The study committee warned the current funding path is unsustainable and asked the legislature to consider a stable mechanism.
Next steps: Committee members requested more analysis and education for legislators about dam hazard classifications, costs, and options (decommissioning, divestiture, targeted fees or alternate revenue).
