On May 22nd, the NH House of Representatives will vote on Senate Bill 11. It was written to enable Exeter and Stratham to jointly form a water/sewer district — but that capability already exists in State RSA Chapters 53-A, 33-B, 38, and 36. These RSAs enabled the creation of the Merrimack Valley Regional Water District (7 towns).
The Bill is unnecessary and should be killed. It contains broad, far reaching language, including this;
“Therefore, the general court declares and determines that the waters of New Hampshire constitute a limited and precious public resource to be protected, conserved, and managed in the interest of present and future generations.”
The “waters of New Hampshire” could be broadly interpreted to mean all water resources are defined as public resources regardless of location (Public or Private Property), and regardless of source (lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, wells…).
This would set a dangerous unconstitutional precedent, severing ownership of water from private property. It could also lead to private wells and septic systems being taxed and “protected, conserved and managed” by newly created, powerful government bodies – whether or not you wish to participate in a water/sewer district.
The Bill also enables the taxation of all property;
“Government property and non-profit organizations within the district shall be subject to the assessment and fees”
This includes a wide range of previously exempt organizations; churches, synagogues, schools, the Boy Scouts, hospitals…
SB-11 also puts into question the ownership of rain. Several states regulate the collection of rainwater (http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html). An Oregon man was fined over $1,500 and sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater for personal use (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property).
Another concern is the cost/responsibility for the management of wastewater;
“This requires careful stewardship and management of water and wastewater within the state.”
The bill does not define “wastewater”, which could lead to radically different interpretations – and serious consequences. For instance, the EPA classifies rainwater run off (e.g. including water that flows off your roof and driveway) as a pollutant and includes it as part of its definition of wastewater.
In 2010, the EPA mandated that Maryland control rain water run off. The projected cost is $14.8B and led to a tax on rain, based upon the percentage of “impervious surfaces” (roofs, driveways, parking lots, etc…) on personal property (http://news.yahoo.com/included-maryland-controversial-rain-tax-exactly-sounds-031617277–finance.html).
In 2012, the EPA mandated Fairfax County, Virginia to implement a rainwater run off management “solution” that would cost hundreds of millions and require private homes to be confiscated/demolished and replaced with grass so the rain could soak into the earth (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2026594092001/epa-illegally-regulating-water-as-a-pollutant/).
Where do we draw the line regarding government intrusion? The term “impervious surfaces” is in NH town Master Plans (including Windham’s), laying the groundwork for SB-11 to impose similar taxes on ALL property. Is this what we want? We already have legislation in place to protect our water, and to enable intermunicipal agreements between towns.
Water is an essential element of life. Do you want the government to take control of your water on your property to “protect”, “conserve” and “manage” it in the “interest of present and future generations”?
Our Founding Fathers believed that Liberty and Property are inseparable – and protected our Property Rights in our U.S. and NH Constitutions. If SB-11 is codified into law, what type of freedom will remain?
Cross posted at Windham Patch
