Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee refers road-salt storage bill to interim study after hearing on contamination risks
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony from sponsor Rep. Rosemarie Rung, New Hampshire Lakes, and DES on HB 16-07, which would require statutory controls for road-salt storage; the committee referred the bill for interim study to gather more data and consider funding and municipal impacts.
After extensive testimony, the Public Works and Highways committee voted to refer House Bill 16-07, which would put statutory controls on the storage of road salt, to interim study.
Sponsor Representative Rosemarie Rung told the committee that voluntary DES best practices have not produced uniform compliance and that rising chloride levels in groundwater and drinking wells motivated statutory action. ‘‘We have recorded a 150% increase in the number of contaminated drinking-water supply wells over the last 30 years,’’ she said, citing a letter from the DES commissioner included in the hearing packet.
Andrea Lamoreaux, president and policy advocate for New Hampshire Lakes, testified in support and linked increasing lake chloride to ecological shifts that can favor cyanobacteria blooms. ‘‘Clean and healthy lakes are very important to New Hampshire for an economic reason,’’ Lamoreaux said, noting that lake associations report salt storage practices that allow runoff into wetlands and lakes.
Steve Landry, supervisor of the Watershed Assistant Section at DES, briefed the committee on DES’s Green Snow Pro voluntary certification and said the agency lacks targeted, site-level data that isolates storage-related contamination. ‘‘We do not have monitoring stations set up adjacent to salt storage sheds to give us those numbers,’’ Landry said, adding that DES would lead rulemaking and suggested a phased, stakeholder-driven approach.
Committee members expressed support for the bill’s intent but raised concerns about funding, municipal impacts, permitting burdens, and drafting ambiguities. Several members said the companion bill (HB 18-10) could provide mitigation funding. After discussion the committee voted to refer HB 16-07 to interim study for further development and data gathering; the recorded committee roll call was 13 in favor, 1 opposed, 3 not voting.
What happens next: The bill will be the subject of interim study, during which members expect DES and stakeholders to develop regulatory options, potential funding mechanisms, and phased compliance approaches to reduce acute costs for small towns and businesses.
