Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Water Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Finance Committee hears bill to create dedicated water-well fund; senators press on fiscal note
Summary
Witnesses told the Senate Finance Committee that House Bill 1088 would create a non‑lapsing fund to receive water‑well board fees so licensing and enforcement are fee‑supported, not subsidized by the general fund; senators asked LBA and DES to clarify fiscal‑note numbers and timing of hiring and fee collection.
The Senate Finance Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1088 on a proposal to create a non‑lapsing fund to hold fees charged by the state water‑well licensing board, witnesses said.
Stephen Roy, head of the Hydrology and Conservation Section at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, told the committee that the bill "establish[es] a non‑lapsing fund into which the New Hampshire Water Well Board fees or fees related to that licensing board will be put" so program staffing, licensing and enforcement are funded by fees rather than the general fund.
The department and the board plan a $100 fee for each well record submitted, Roy said, and an eight‑year average of about 2,400 records per year would yield roughly $242,600 annually. Committee witnesses said current general‑fund support covers about $103,000 in position costs and that existing fee collections before the rule change produced roughly $50,000 a year.
"Right now the state is subsidizing with the general fund about $50,000 a year to the program," DES staff said, and the board developed the fee increase to support two positions they say the program needs to administer licensing and enforcement.
Senators focused on the fiscal note and how the projected revenues and expenditures would flow between the general fund and the proposed dedicated account. "I don't see how the negative number in revenue makes sense to me," one senator said, pressing DES and the Legislative Budget Assistant to reconcile the tables. Committee members suggested clarifying assumptions about when fee collections begin, when positions may be authorized and filled, and whether an effective date (one senator suggested July 1, 2027) would reduce apparent year‑by‑year anomalies in the fiscal note.
DES witnesses said fee collection can begin under the board's administrative rule change, but collections would flow to the general fund until a dedicated account and staffing are in place to administer the program. They said the fiscal‑note tables are trying to show a transition: initially the general fund would lose revenue that is shifted to the dedicated fund while some staffing costs still remain on the general fund until new positions are authorized and filled.
The committee closed the public hearing after receiving mixed sign‑in support (one in‑person support, one online opposition) and asked staff to work with LBA and DES to reconcile the fiscal figures before further action.
Next steps: the committee did not take final action on HB1088 at the hearing and requested clarifications on the fiscal note and effective‑date language.
