Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Protection Fines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to raise Shoreland Protection Act fine ceiling from $5,000 to $15,000
Summary
Rep. Rosemarie Rung told the committee HB422 would increase the maximum administrative penalty under the Shoreline Water Quality Protection Act to adjust for inflation and strengthen deterrence; DES staff said they do not take frequent enforcement actions and would use fines as leverage.
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Protection Fines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Rosemarie Rung introduced House Bill 422 as a housekeeping bill to raise the maximum administrative penalty under the Shoreline Water Quality Protection Act. Rung said the statute originally set a $5,000 fine in 1991; using a CPI calculation she said that amount equates to about $11,709.65 in current dollars and she proposed raising the ceiling to $15,000 to strengthen deterrence. She told the committee the change is intended to help establish a "culture of lake stewardship" by signaling penalties for unlawful shoreline clearing or other violations.
Elizabeth Harper of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association said contractors and homeowners sometimes treat the existing fine as "the cost of doing business," and that increasing the penalty would help the department and local stakeholders with education and enforcement. Andrea Lamoreaux of New Hampshire Lakes echoed support and said DES prefers education first but that a higher ceiling helps when property owners refuse to cooperate.
Darlene Fors of the Department of Environmental Services testified that DES is not taking a formal position on the bill but is available to answer questions. Fors said the department had not issued shoreland fines frequently in recent years — citing a 2013 shoreland fine as the last instance she recalled — and that fines are used as leverage when education and voluntary compliance fail. Committee members asked whether the department would undertake restorations itself and seek restitution; Fors said DES typically requires the responsible party to submit and complete a restoration plan and that fines are a last‑resort lever.
The hearing closed after testimony from lake groups and DES; committee staff recorded a blue sheet tally for the session but no committee floor vote was taken in the hearing record provided.

