Member communities ask for legislators' help in reducing bills for wastewater infrastructure

Treating wastewater effectively and efficiently not only saves communities money, but helps protect the health of our area's greatest assets: our lakes. Administrators of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program, the regional wastewater treatment organization operated by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and 10 member communities, hope the Legislature will reconsider calculations for a fund required to hold the total replacement value of infrastructure, and create a committee tasked with studying the best way to organize the effort.

In a show of bipartisan support, state Reps. Charlie St. Clair (D-Laconia) and Steven Bogert (R-Laconia) are the cosponsors of a legislative service request — HB 1435-FN — which would adjust the way the replacement fund is calculated. If passed, the fund would be capped at 2% of the value of the equipment and other depreciable assets, a reduction from 5%, over a 10-year period, and the value would still be computed every five years.

St. Clair is also currently the interim mayor of Laconia, and Bogert serves on that city's council, representing Ward 5.

When the legislation eventually moves to the Senate, NHDES and the member communities will encourage Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) to offer an amendment creating a study on the programs' organization. Specifically, if its management should move from under NHDES to another quasi-state authority, such as is done at the Pease Development Authority in Portsmouth, or some other sort of regional wastewater authority.

The program is unique across the country in that it is state owned and operated. There are examples in other locations, like in the region surrounding Lawrence, Massachusetts, for example, where regional authorities govern wastewater treatment. Its replacement fund is used for low-cost projects that are needed unexpectedly.

The sewer system serves portions of Laconia, Belmont, Center Harbor, Franklin, Gilford, Moultonborough, Meredith, Northfield, Sanbornton and Tilton, and was created in 1972 as part of the Clean Water Act.

During their October meeting at the Belmont Mill, the board of directors first discussed the idea of asking Lang to submit an amendment to add a study committee, tasked with weighing the various options for wastewater treatment governance. A letter, drafted by the committee, was circulated among all of the towns party to the program.

Alarms bells rang earlier this year when member communities were hit with a significant increase in their bills. Almost $70 million has been spent to construct the system, and annual operation and maintenance costs total around $4.7 million. Each community pays proportionally into the program’s replacement fund, currently set at 5% of the total cost to completely replace the system over 10 years. 

Five years ago, an estimate put the plant and assets worth about $150 million. Now, the way that figure is calculated changed, and Laconia’s bill, along with all other communities', increased after a reevaluation pegged the new figure at about $360 million. That resulted in the cooperative attempting to collect $16 million over 10 years, divided proportionally between all participants.

Typically, Laconia would pay less than $200,000 into the replacement fund annually, but this year, public works staff received a bill for almost $750,000.

The 5% figure is state law in RSA 485-A:50 on Municipal Assessments, and requires legislative action for revision. At a meeting of the advisory board in September, members learned each municipality had approved supporting the legislative request to reduce the percentage maintained in the replacement fund, from 5% to 2%, reducing the bills owed by each community.

According to the methodology section of the request, NHDES staff noted that, based on the fiscal year 2025 to FY 2029 valuation at $314.5 million, annual assessments total about $1.7 million. With the reduced cap at 2% over 10 years, annual assessments would total about $663,000, resulting in a reduction in state revenues of $994,340 for the replacement fund.

And at the Oct. 27 meeting of the Laconia City Council, councilors approved their signature on the advisory board’s letter of concern. The letter, addressed to NHDES Commissioner Robert Scott, expressed the member communities’ concerns regarding the state’s ability to execute a capital improvements program that is “financially sustainable for the member communities.”

“We’ve talked a few times about an LSR that’s going to go out to try to rewrite how we pay into, or how much that we have to pay into by percentage, the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program as we’re one of the 10 communities,” City Manager Kirk Beattie said. “To add onto that, and to support the LSR ... we have a letter of concern from all of the communities that we want to send out, just to lay out so we continue to build those building blocks of our concerns as to why we’re moving along with an LSR, why we’re moving along with some of these changes.”

At their meeting on Nov. 24, Beattie told councilors legislation sponsored by Bogert was submitted.

“There’s going to be a point in time with this Winnipesaukee River Basin [Program] bill that, as soon as we figure out what committee it’s going to go to, it would be advisable that the council in a joint agreement would have a letter written and submitted to the committee in support of this,” Bogert said during the meeting. “It would show that the city itself supports the passage of the bill. As soon as I can find out what committee it comes to, I’ll relay that over to the city manager.” 

The primary concerns expressed in the letter were: how funds are expended for projects; a lack of expertise on the program's leadership team to properly manage and execute projects; an apparent inability of the management team to articulate a long-term, cost-effective capital improvements program; an inability of management to develop cost-effective strategies for asset renewal; and to provide long-term rate impacts to taxpayers. 

Regarding an asset management plan, in 2016, grant funding was made available to the group to deliver a viable plan by 2018. The plan was not delivered, and grant funding was withdrawn.

“After nearly 9 years and $550K in community investment, the asset management program remains in the implementation phase. The expertise and software acquired for this initiative has not yet been fully leveraged to the benefit of the program and ratepayers,” the letter reads, in part. ”Organizational engagement and commitment to implement and execute a viable asset management plan appears to be a challenge. Full implementation is currently scheduled for 2027, with additional expenditures proposed under the 'master plans' projects to be undertaken by the WRBP.”

In 2021, the preliminary design phase of a solids handling project started. The final design phase began in 2023, and included the completion of all evaluations, designs and preparation of contract documents, plus bid assistance to advertise the project and evaluate bids. Near the completion of the 60% design phase in 2023, a project engineer reported the project, as designed, was “not constructible.” NHDES staff apparently paused further engineering work to avoid unnecessary expenditures. 

“To date, over $665K has been spent on a project that is 'un-constructable,'” the letter reads. 

In October 2025, members communities learned the cause of the issue was the failure of the engineer to recognize apparent safety problems with the location of new boilers. 

“After 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, the solids handling project is on hold and member communities do not have clarity on how funds spent on an 'un-constructable' project will be returned to the ratepayers,” the letter reads.

There were other concerns related to NHDES in the letter, echoed by a letter sent by member communities in 2014, and again in 2015. Their view then was members were not well-positioned to deal with the challenges of aging infrastructure, were on an unsustainable trajectory to finance necessary investments, sufficient resources and expertise were not in place, and they were concerned about the costs and timeliness of project delivery. 

“It is the opinion of the communities today that the issues cited in 2014/2015 remain. The goal of any utility is to deliver the desired level of service in the most cost-efficient manner possible,” the letter reads. “The member communities believe the DES/WRBP management team has not met this mark, and we lack the confidence they can do so. Further, we believe the DES/WRBP management team does not understand and is not aligned with the ratepayer’s ability to finance the WRBP.”

The letter concludes with several requests of NHDES staff: conduct a thorough review of management practices and structures; implement corrective actions; consider changes in the management team; commit to putting the WRBP on a financially sustainable pathway; provide a robust and transparent process to inform member communities on long-term costs; and to connect the WRPB decision-making process to the ratepayers.

“We remain committed to working collaboratively with DES/WRBP to ensure safe and effective wastewater management,” the letter reads. “However, without prompt action, the ongoing management deficiencies pose unacceptable financial risks to the member communities.” 

At their meeting on Dec. 16, again at the Belmont Mill, advisory board members learned Scott had replied to their concerns and was amenable to dialogue on the questions. A meeting of NHDES leaders and stakeholders from the member communities — tentatively scheduled for late January — is where they’ll seek to find common ground on how to move forward.

In a letter dated Dec. 11, Scott wrote they’d worked diligently to address concerns in the 2015 letter: creating a Capital Improvement Plan process; improving flow monitoring; and frequent and transparent communication with the advisory board; among other items.

But the infrastructure itself is not immune to its own pressures, economic and practical. The facility is aging, Scott wrote, and many components are nearing the end of their life. Construction inflation and equipment costs have risen steadily over the past five years, and investment is needed.

“We understand fully the affordability challenges faced by your communities. Based on AB input for the last 20 years, NHDES has endeavored to keep budgets as low as possible. In real terms (adjusted for inflation), the budget has remained essentially flat,” Scott wrote, in part. “The amount of money spent on capital budget projects has been low for a facility of this size, which was to appease the state’s and members’ expressed desire to keep overall budgets flat.”

The letter also addressed management concerns raised by members. Scott wrote he’d organize a meeting to hash those concerns out, inviting stakeholders to meet with leadership at NHDES.

“As noted above, I would very much like to meet with the members of the advisory board and community decision-makers to discuss a path forward,” Scott wrote. “This is especially important considering the bills moving forward in the Legislature regarding the replacement fund and organizational structure of the WRBP. You will hear from NHDES staff very soon to solicit dates for such a meeting.”