Committee backs study commission to consider transfer of Winnipesaukee Basin wastewater program; conservation provisions left informational

The Finance Division I work session voted unanimously to advance Senate Bill 592 after public testimony and committee discussion about two distinct parts of the measure: provisions adding wildlife "strongholds" and corridors into regional conservation planning, and a study commission to explore transferring ownership of the Winnipesaukee Basin wastewater program to a nonstate entity.

Jason Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, told the committee he and his members "are fine with the bill as printed" but had pressed during earlier consideration to clarify that designation of wildlife strongholds is meant for "information gathering and not for regulatory purposes." Stock said Senate amendments addressed that concern and he supported the bill as revised.

Ted Deers, assistant water division director at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, urged support for the bill's study commission and for creating a governor-appointed director-level engineering position to help oversee transition planning. Deers said the state is "the only state that actually owns and operates a regional wastewater authority" for the Winnipesaukee Basin and that "the communities pay for it all." He described the system: a wastewater treatment plant with an 11.5 million-gallon-per-day design flow, roughly 60 miles of pipeline (much of it force main) and 14 pump stations, and said the plant currently treats about 5 million gallons per day.

Committee members asked about costs, where operating costs would fall after a transfer, and the logistics of moving state employees, payroll, retirement and benefits out of the state system. Deers said the fiscal hit to the state would be minimal beyond a small number of administrative oversight positions, and emphasized that the difficult work is the orderly transition of employees, contracts, records and infrastructure responsibilities.

Members also debated the study commission's membership and timeline. Several lawmakers pressed whether the commission could produce useful recommendations by the statutory Nov. 1 report deadline; Deers said the commission could produce a focused report in six months outlining next steps, though not a complete implementation plan. One member signaled intent to propose an amendment to require particular local representation (for example, an appointee from Franklin, where the treatment plant is located); that amendment failed on a show-of-hands vote.

After debate the committee moved the bill into executive session and, on a roll-call vote, approved the motion to pass 9–0. The committee record shows the motion carried with nine 'yes' votes and no 'no' votes. The committee noted that further statutory changes would likely be required to accomplish any transfer and that future follow‑up legislation would be expected if the commission recommends a transfer.

The committee assigned staff to draft reports: one staff member to handle the bill report for SB 592 and another to handle related documentation. The measure will continue through the normal legislative process.

The committee closed the work session on SB 592 and then opened consideration of another measure (see related item on quarterly fiscal reporting).