Bill Text: NH HB1529 | 2012 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Relative to the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 2-0)
Status: (Failed) 2012-03-07 - House Inexpedient to Legislate: Motion Adopted Voice Vote; House Journal 21, PG.1321 [HB1529 Detail]
Download: New_Hampshire-2012-HB1529-Introduced.html
HB 1529-FN-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED
2012 SESSION
HOUSE BILL 1529-FN-LOCAL
AN ACT relative to the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state.
SPONSORS: Rep. Kingsbury, Belk 4; Rep. Notter, Hills 19
COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government
This bill prohibits the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2338
06/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Use of Fluoride. Amend RSA 485:14 to read as follows:
485:14 Use of Fluoride. No fluoride, nor any chemical containing fluoride, shall be introduced into the public water supply [unless and until the municipality or municipalities using said waters have held a public hearing as to the introduction of fluoride into the public water supply of said municipality or municipalities, and the registered voters of such municipality or municipalities have approved such action pursuant to RSA 44:16, RSA 31:17-a, RSA 52:23, or RSA 485:14-a. For purposes of this section “municipality” means a municipality that has 100 or more user connections that are served from the public water supply].
2 New Hampshire Clean Lakes Program. Amend RSA 487:17, II(b)(2) to read as follows:
(2) The most environmentally sound treatment technique relative to the specific infestation will be used, which also meets the requirements of state rules, including rules adopted under RSA 430. Notwithstanding any [law or] interagency agreement to the contrary, and subject to RSA 487:30-a, the department’s recommendation to use herbicide applications shall be made in consultation with the fish and game department and shall be implemented only if the department of agriculture, markets, and food issues the permit pursuant to RSA 430:33, with or without the concurrence of the department of fish and game.
3 Lakes Restoration and Preservation Fund. Amend RSA 487:25, II to read as follows:
II. The department is authorized, subject to RSA 487:30-a, to utilize such methods of control and to employ such personnel, consultant services, and equipment as, in its judgment, will control aquatic nuisances in the surface waters of the state as defined in RSA 485-A:2.
4 New Section; Milfoil Eradication. Amend RSA 487 by inserting after section 30 the following new sections:
487:30-a Milfoil Eradication. No person shall use any herbicide within 10 miles upgradient of a water intake of a domestic water supply of a city, town, or village. All milfoil within 10 miles upgradient of a water intake of a domestic water supply of a city, town, or village shall be hand-pulled.
487:30-b Penalty. Whoever introduces any herbicide into a body of water in violation of RSA 487:30-a shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person.
5 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 31:17-a, relative to referendum on public water supply.
II. RSA 44:16, relative to public water supplies.
III. RSA 52:23, relative to public water in village districts.
IV. RSA 485:14-a, relative to referendum for public water systems serving more than one political subdivision.
6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.
LBAO
12-2338
12/12/11
HB 1529-FN-LOCAL - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the introduction of fluoride and herbicides into the drinking water of the state.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Environmental Services states this bill will have an indeterminable fiscal impact on county and local revenue and expenditures in FY 2013 and each year thereafter. The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill may increase state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2013 each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state revenue.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Environmental Services states this bill prohibits the introduction of fluoride into the public water supply and prohibits the use of any herbicide within 10 miles upgradient of a water intake of a domestic water supply of a city, town or village. Communities that add fluoride to their water systems will experience a decrease in revenue and expenditures as they will no longer have fluoridation expenses or the need to charge water user fees to pay for the fluoridation expenses. The Department states for most exotic aquatic plant control project grants, the local share is 40 percent. The average grant is for $80,000. If a community were to choose non-chemical controls to treat a body of water within 10 miles of water intake, the community would have increased costs. The Department assumes the same level of grants would be distributed, but to fewer, more expensive projects. As a result some communities may not receive the grants, decreasing revenue. The Department states this bill does not impact state revenue or expenditures. The Department states the impact on county and local revenue and expenditures is indeterminable.
The Judicial Branch states the herbicide ban portion of the bill adds a misdemeanor for a natural person and felony for any other person, creating the potential this bill will add offenses to the Branch’s caseload. The Branch has no information to estimate how many charges would be brought as a result of the changes contained in the bill to determine the fiscal impact on expenditures but does have information on the cost for processing misdemeanors or a class B felony. All costs are estimated based on case weight information from the last needs assessment completed in 2005. A misdemeanor can be either class A or class B, with the presumption being a class B misdemeanor. The Branch states a class A misdemeanor will cost $59.11 per case in FY 2013 and $61.31 per case in FY 2014 and each year thereafter, and a class B misdemeanor will cost $43.19 per case in FY 2013 and $44.54 per case in FY 2014 and each year thereafter. The Branch states the class B felony would be classified as an average routine felony and treated as an average routine criminal case in the Superior Court. The Branch states an average routine criminal case will cost $389.84 per case in FY 2013 and $401.48 per case in FY 2014 and each year thereafter The possibility of appeals increases the likelihood the fiscal impact on the Branch will exceed $10,000.
The Judicial Council states to the extent an unspecified misdemeanor results in a misdemeanor offense where the right to counsel exists this bill may result in an indeterminable increase in general fund expenditures. The Council states if an individual is found to be indigent, the flat fee of $275 per misdemeanor is charged by a public defender or contract attorney. If an assigned counsel attorney is used the fee is $60 per hour with a cap of $1,400 for a misdemeanor charge. The Council also states additional costs could be incurred if an appeal is filed. The public defender, contract attorney and assigned counsel rates for Supreme Court appeals is capped at $2,000 per case, with many assigned counsel attorneys seeking permission to exceed the fee cap. Requests to exceed the fee cap are seldom granted. Finally, expenditures would increase if services other than counsel are requested and approved by the court during the defense of a case or during an appeal.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent more individuals are charged, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration in a county correctional facility, the counties may have increased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine the number of individuals who might be charged, convicted or incarcerated as a result of this bill to determine an exact fiscal impact. The average annual cost to incarcerate an individual in a county correctional facility is approximately $35,000. There is no impact on county revenue.
