[Emphasis mine – Skip]
I wanted to share the conversation that I had with Rep. Abrami via email over the past few days regarding SB-11. I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences in the language of the Bill. These concerns are listed below. If you agree with me, please share your concerns with your representatives.
———————————————————————————————-
From: Ken Eyring
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:08 PM
To: Abrami, Patrick
Cc: ~All Representatives
Subject: Re: Senate Bill 11 — Please consider these concerns/potential unintended consequences
Dear Honorable Representative Abrami,
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and share your thoughts. Per your advice, I read Mr. Johnston’s summary of the bill (which you sent to me). With sincere respect, I believe that both you and Mr. Johnson misunderstand the concerns that I and others have raised. I am concerned that SB-11’s language may not be interpreted in the manner which you (as a sponsor) intended. Please give me a moment to explain.
In my previous letter, I referred to some of the text in SB-11 as amended (e.g. “waters of New Hampshire”) that I felt could be broadly interpreted to mean ALL waters of New Hampshire, regardless of source or location. I appreciate that you agree with me that the Bill’s current statement of purpose does not focus on the true purpose — and I want to thank you in advance for amending this section on Wednesday on the House floor.
There are other areas of the Bill that I am also concerned about, and perhaps it is due to a lack of understanding on my part. I would appreciate if you would help clarify the following concerns related to this excerpt from 31:141:

