Assistant Commissioner Adam Crapo told the Science, Technology and Energy Committee on Jan. 14 that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) oversees more than 2,600 dams statewide and 276 state‑owned dams that are increasingly costly to maintain. “To do that, we’ll need around $15,000,000 per year to sustain that type of maintenance on these facilities,” Crapo said.

Why it matters: DES staff and lawmakers said many state‑owned dams were built a century ago, several have been reclassified as higher‑hazard as development occurred downstream, and existing revenue streams (hydropower lease income, capital appropriations and one‑time ARPA funds) do not cover long‑term needs. Without a sustainable funding mechanism, officials said more dams will fall into deferred maintenance or require costly emergency repairs.

DES overview and costs. Crapo outlined DES divisions responsible for dams, engineering, operations and permitting and said the department has prioritized the highest hazards but faces growing need. Chief engineer Corey Clark told the committee roughly 10% of state‑owned dams were designed primarily for flood control while many others support recreation and local water levels; he said decisions about operations and maintenance often require balancing downstream risks and local impacts. Clark and DES materials quantified an estimated $414 million to bring the state‑owned dam inventory to current standards and a long‑term target of about $16 million per year to put state dams on a 50‑year maintenance cycle.

How the state has paid so far. DES has combined general fund operations, dam maintenance funds (partly supported by hydropower lease revenue and water‑user agreements), capital appropriations and federal grants — including about $30 million in ARPA funds used for selected reconstruction projects. Clark described hydropower lease revenue as an important but declining source because some leased plants have stopped generating (Kelly’s Falls, Hadley Falls), and lease income has not kept pace with inflation.

Proposals and study work. DES described a summer 2024 committee (under SB 549) that studied alternatives for funding and management of state‑owned dams. One of the committee’s recommendations examined a shoreline assessment (charged per linear foot) and a modest voter‑registration fee increase to create a stable revenue stream; DES packet materials referenced a proposal captured in LSR 2025-0635. Clark and DES staff emphasized the political and practical challenges of dam removal and of changing lake levels for lakeshore property owners.

Ongoing projects and near‑term needs. DES listed ongoing ARPA‑funded projects (for example Goose Pond and Cops Pond) and emphasized immediate needs such as upgrading spillway capacities, addressing embankment stability and replacing gates and stop‑logs. Clark said many dams were “built in the 1800s” and that inspections and studies funded by ARPA revealed discharge‑capacity and stability shortfalls for several high‑hazard dams.

What the committee heard. Committee members asked whether federal agencies own other major dams (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates several large flood‑control reservoirs), whether dams are multi‑purpose and how removal or lowering of impoundments would affect shorefront property owners. DES said removal can reduce downstream risk but can also cause significant local impacts (lake level drop of 8–12 feet at Lake Winnipesaukee if Lakeport were removed was noted as an example).

What’s next. DES officials said the department will continue to present detailed project cost estimates and related legislation and that funding proposals — including LSR 2025-0635 — may return to the Legislature for consideration. The department asked the committee to consider stable, predictable funding rather than relying on one‑time federal grants.

Ending note: DES asked lawmakers to weigh tradeoffs — between public safety, recreational and economic benefits of impoundments, and the long‑term cost of keeping aging infrastructure operational — as they consider policy and capital budget options.