Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Lake Protection Yard Waste topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would ban intentional disposal of yard waste into New Hampshire waters; DES supports clarifying placement

2139570 · January 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Rep. Rosemarie Rung told the committee HB 416 would prohibit intentionally dumping yard waste into lakes to reduce nutrient loading that fuels cyanobacteria blooms. DES and lake groups supported the intent and offered to help refine statutory placement and enforcement language.

Rep. Rosemarie Rung (Hillsborough 12) described House Bill 416, which would prohibit intentional disposal of yard waste into New Hampshire waters under the Clean Lakes program to reduce nutrient inputs that feed cyanobacteria blooms.

Rung and witnesses from New Hampshire Lakes and local lake associations argued the practice — leaves, grass clippings and other yard debris placed into water — adds nitrogen and phosphorus that contribute to algal blooms, and that codifying a specific prohibition would raise public awareness and provide a clearer enforcement hook. Department of Environmental Services assistant director Ted Diers testified that current statute (RSA 485‑A and related water quality rules) already prohibits certain disposal but the language is dated, not explicit about yard waste, and often enforced after complaints. DES said it would be willing to work with the sponsor on statutory placement and enforcement mechanisms.

Lake advocates said most compliance would be achieved through education by lake associations and local outreach, with enforcement primarily via complaints; witnesses noted some municipal authorities and marine patrols already observe and report violations. Supporters urged the committee to adopt a narrowly worded prohibition and noted the measure would be one small step among many to reduce nutrient loading of sensitive lakes.

No vote was taken; the public hearing closed.