The RPCs have expressed the desire to start lobbying for legislation that will give them more power and authority and help them enforce HUD’s vision on our local townships.
An example of enabling legislation, which passed with some of the original language taken out, was SB 11.
SB 11 was sponsored by Sen. Stiles, Dist 24; Sen. Prescott, Dist 23; Rep. Abrami, Rock 19; Rep. Copeland, Rock 19; Rep. Schlachman, Rock 18; Rep. Flockhart, Rock 18; Rep. Lovejoy, Rock 36 who represent Exeter and Stratham.
The first question that comes to mind is, why would Exeter and Stratham need this legislation which “permits municipalities to establish water and/or sewer utility districts and to enter into intermunicipal agreements for the establishment of such districts” considering that the Merrimack Valley Water District has been in existence since 2004 by virtue of RSA Statutes: Chapter 53-A, Chapter 33-B, Chapter 38, and Chapter 362? The towns of Bedford, Pelham, Litchfield, Londonderry, Amherst, Pittsfield, and Nashua are members.
It didn’t take long for this entity to try to usurp property rights from its member towns. In 2005 we saw then Representative Michael Scanlon (R) from Bedford (and then-Chairman of the Water District) file this bill: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2005/HB0572.html
HB 572 could have had dire consequences for homeowners. HB 572 would have allowed the “Merrimack Valley Regional Water District” to take control of the private wells of the residents of these towns by eminent domain.
There is language in the SB 11 that states that by virtue of the general court, water would be “determined” and “declared” a “public” resource — does this mean the state would own all the water in NH, including the water under private property?
The bill also allows for the right of the water “district” to tax property owners within the district. Which property owners might these be? ALL property owners in the district or just those who are hooked into any water processing and waste water treatment plants that might be built?
And what would keep this “district” from levying a tax on homeowners, assessed by the amount of water that runs off impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and walkways as was just done in Rhode Island?
Just as the newly revived Regional Planning Commissions have been viewed as a threat to some property rights, Regional Water Districts seem to be yet another layer of bureaucracy that would add to that threat.
Governor Lynch by executive order, created a WSC in 2011. The WSC recently completed a report that mentions these goals: “review and revise zoning and permitting laws, enable legislation for regional cooperation and cost sharing, involve the federal government, and consider “international” trade agreements”.
And look at this section on Storm Water Utilities – do you smell new taxes here?
“A storm water utility generates funding through user fees that are typically based on the impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, roads, driveways, parking lots) of each property within the storm water utility district. Storm water utilities are similar to the dedicated municipal funds for public water and sewer utilities. The funding from storm water utilities can be used for catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, storm water infrastructure upgrades, and a variety of other storm water management activities, in addition to the administrative costs of running a storm water program.”
From the WSC Report to Governor Lynch they included feedback:
I wish to respond to the Commission’s request for public comments on its work before issuing a final report. My comments apply to privately-owned wells on privately-owned property used for residential purposes. First, should a recommendation be made that would involve state regulation of, or indeed a state interest in, (a) the amount of use, (b) the timing of use or (c) the purpose of use of water in a private well used for residential purposes, it would be impinging on what most folks in this state view as a basic property right. Many would view it as a “taking” under the eminent domain power. Executive branch implementation of the recommendation would not be tolerated and would no doubt be countermanded by legislative action. Second, a recommendation that private residential well water is somehow a state resource to be used or managed in the interest of all of the state’s residents would be regarded similarly. Third, a recommendation that municipalities establish water- use policies for private residential wells or join with other communities for such regulations would be regarded similarly. No comparable objection would be made to such a recommendation made with respect to public water supplies. New Hampshire is the “live free or die” state. I urge the Commission to tread lightly.
Neal Kurk, Weare
See all feedback here: http://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/publications/documents/public-comments.pdf