I would be happy to pay for this permit in order to support the health of our lakes. Please vote yes.
HB1477
House · 2026 sessionBipartisanKilled in SenatePermits for floating dock platforms
AILimits anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters to adjacent shorefront property owners, requires a $50 permit with identification through state police marine patrol, exempts certain government and conservation uses, and fines noncompliance.
relative to the permitting and regulation of anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters.
Status
Killed in the Senate — Inexpedient to Legislate · April 23, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✕Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
140 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 72 of 72 written submissionsHB1477 would require a $50 annual permit for anchored seasonal floating platforms, including inflatables, on public waters, with revenue split between the Navigation Safety Fund and the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund. Most testimony reviewed supports the bill, citing the urgent need to fund cyanobacteria mitigation and understaffed marine patrol operations and concerns about the proliferation of floats harming lake wildlife and navigation, while opponents characterize the fee as an unnecessary tax or bureaucratic "money grab" that unfairly singles out lakefront or raft owners without meaningfully addressing water quality.
- Funds urgently needed cyanobacteria mitigationSupport42 of 72 reviewed
Supporters argue permit revenue would provide a sustainable funding source for the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund, which is needed to address worsening algae blooms that threaten lake health, recreation, tourism, and property values.
“Due to construction and climate change the pond now has nasty yellowish scum/ cyanobacteria every summer. My immediate family won’t swim in the pond due to worry about getting sick, or even getting the bacteria on their body.”
— Linda Skidmore, Chichester · #523538 — read full submission →
“Cyanobacteria is a significant scourge on our lakes and ponds. As the president of Perkins Pond Protective Association, I fully support the funding”
— Suzanne Graves, Sunapee · #524950 — read full submission →
- Funds understaffed Marine Patrol / boating safetySupport18 of 72 reviewed
Supporters note that half the permit revenue would go to the Navigation Safety Fund, helping finance additional marine patrol staff and boating safety enforcement, which they describe as currently understaffed.
- Proliferating floats and inflatables harm lakesSupport11 of 72 reviewed
Supporters describe a sharp increase in anchored inflatables and platforms that block sunlight, disturb wildlife habitat, stir up sediment feeding algae blooms, and clutter shorelines and navigation, arguing permitting would allow better tracking and management.
- Modest fee, revenue will outweigh administrative costsSupport9 of 72 reviewed
Supporters argue the $50 fee is reasonable given the benefits, and that even accounting for the two additional staff the Department of Safety says it would need, expected revenue from permitting platforms statewide would exceed the added administrative cost.
- Lakes are vital to New Hampshire's economySupport11 of 72 reviewed
Supporters point to the broader economic importance of lakes to tourism, property values, and jobs as a reason to invest in their protection through this funding mechanism.
- Unnecessary tax and bureaucracy / "money grab"Oppose6 of 72 reviewed
Opponents characterize the permit fee as an unjustified new tax and added bureaucratic burden on residents who already pay significant property and boat-related taxes, arguing it does not reflect the state's "Live Free or Die" values.
“This is nothing more than a blatant attempt at more taxation and more bureacracy. As a lakefront owner I pay alot of real estate taxes”
— Mitchell Harris, Sunapee · #523269 — read full submission →
“This is a huge overstep and money grab. $50 for my swim raft and another $50 for an inflatable loon? Seriously, what happened to live free or die.”
— Kimberly Scott, Alton · #524090 — read full submission →
- Unfairly targets a narrow group of lakefront/raft ownersOppose3 of 72 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill singles out lakefront homeowners and float owners for fees while the broader public uses public lakes for free, and suggest a more broadly based funding mechanism would be fairer.
- Administrative costs could offset the funding gainedOppose2 of 72 reviewed
A couple of opponents note that hiring the additional staff needed to administer the permit program could dilute or offset the net funds available for cyanobacteria mitigation and marine patrol.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Opposition to HB 1447 HB 1447 represents a troubling step backward in the pursuit of equality and inclusivity within our society. By strictly defining "sex" based on biological characteristics listed on birth certificates, the bill undermines the identity and dignity of transgender and non-binary individuals. Such rigid categorizations fail to recognize the complex and multifaceted nature of gender, subjecting many individuals to increased discrimination and marginalization in spaces that should be welcoming and safe. This legislation not only restricts access to essential facilities like restrooms and locker rooms but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes, creating a hostile environment that can severely impact mental health and well-being. Moreover, the assertion that these restrictions do not constitute discrimination undermines the very principles of equality and human rights. By allowing public institutions to enforce sex-specific policies, we risk fostering a culture of exclusion. The limited exceptions for emergencies and parental accompaniment provide little reassurance and fail to address the broader implications for individuals who do not fit neatly into the proposed categories. In a diverse society that values compassion and understanding, legislation like HB 1447 is counterproductive, fostering division rather than unity. It is crucial to reject this bill and advocate for policies that affirm all identities while promoting genuine inclusivity and respect for everyone.
Lakes in New Hampshire are increasingly under threat from cyanobacteria blooms, and it is essential to create more sources of funds to combat these blooms.
We strongly object to Bill HB 1477, as it is written! NH is the LIVE FREE State & this bill is definitely not in keeping with that concept. While the State is trying to reduce the TAX load to make it a more desirable place to live & work, this bill is effectively increasing the States TAX’s. It also is inhibiting the enjoyment people will have when visiting the State, due to the loss of some floats. It is especially onerous, since it is picking on a select few (the wrong few, we might add) to penalize because it is felt that that the Marine Patrol needs more money to operate & that more money is needed for Cyanobacteria mitigation. The reality is that if a float or many floats exist or not, does not significantly effect the work of the marine patrol & the existence of floats does not significantly contribute to the pollution that causes the Cyanobacteria. People will swim in the lakes & streams anyway. If there is a real need for additional support of the Marine patrol & Cyanobacteria mitigation, it should come from much broader base. That base should encompass all the entities that contribute to the need for the Marine Patrol & Cyanobacteria mitigation. Everyone using the lakes should pay and all businesses in the surrounding watershed area that produce pollution should have to contribute. For example, It should include day guests at the parks, fishermen that use the boat ramps, commercial entities, etc and not just from a few homeowners with rafts.
Our beautiful NH lakes must be adequately funded to combat detrimental cyanobacterial blooms.
We need to protect lakes in New Hampshire. They are a critical part of the state's economy.
This bill requires all anchored seasonal platforms, including inflatables, on public waters to obtain a $50 permit from the Department of Safety, Division of State Police Marine Patrol. Permit revenue is split evenly, with $25 going to the Navigation Safety Fund, which funds marine patrol operations and boating safety enforcement, and $25 to the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund. This bill strengthens boating and navigation safety by supporting marine patrol operations, while also creating a new, sustainable funding source to help communities address harmful cyanobacteria blooms. While the Department of Safety estimates it would need two additional staff to administer the program, the revenue from registering platforms across New Hampshire’s approximately 1,000 lakes is likely to far outweigh the added administrative costs.
It will be prudent for the Legislature to put pressure on the DES to enforce the Minimum Standards of the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act. Rather then trying to raise more money to mitigate a problem caused by poor stewardship of our States shorelines.
Hi. Me again. For the same reasons as 1301, the resources necessary to address the health issues related to lake use simply must be enhanced. While I do not live on the lake myself, I have three personal friends who have suffered from neurological disorders related to their exposures to the unhealthy lake waters. I do use Squam Lake extensively with my grandchildren during the summers, and am anxious about their future activities there. (Do we need to remove to the Atlantic Ocean?) The Cyanobacteria problem is extremely evident and is worsening. Please make the changes necessary to support remedial actions. Thank you.
Testimony My name is Norm Royce. I’m a resident of Northwood, live on Northwood Lake, am retired from the Aerospace/Defense Industry and the past president of the Northwood Lake Watershed Association. I’m currently an elected member of the town Municipal Budget Committee, an appointed member of the Conservation Committee, and a Board member of NH LAKES. I’m very familiar with Cyanobacteria and the impact it has on the users of our lakes. The recommendation from NHDES when a Cyanobacteria bloom occurs is to close the lake for all water activities, resample in a week, and either stay closed or open the lake based on the sampling results. Cyanobacteria treatment, even in a small body of water, costs several hundred thousand dollars. The good news is that to apply for funds from NHDES, the waterbody must have a Watershed Management Plan in place. This means that the waterbody is being managed for root cause and preventive actions for Cyanobacteria. To just treat the waterbody without a thorough understanding of causes wouldn’t really solve the problem. In my town there are 7 lakes. Over the last several years there have been multiple outbreaks of Cyanobacteria blooms. I've had multiple property owners ask why this is occurring, and should they just sell their property. As President of the Northwood Lake Watershed Association, I wrote Warrant Articles for the three towns that have shoreline on Northwood Lake. These Warrant articles describe the need for education and prevention. I advise that treatment costs are much too expensive - the focus needs to be on root cause and preventive actions. These Warrant articles only provide a small amount of funds required. Please support HB1477. Cyanobacteria blooms can be addressed but it will require funding.
I support this bill to create a new , sustainable funding source to help NH lakes deal with Cyanobacteria blooms.
I think this bill will be important in supporting our marine patrol operations by strengthening boating and navigating safety. I realize that the Dept of Safety estimates 2 additional staff members are needed, It seems as if the revenue collected from registering platforms would more than cover this cost.
NH lakes are a gem! We need to protect our waterways. I live on Perkins Pond in Sunapee, NH. Cyanobacteria blooms have become more common, so lake associations need funds to mitigate these blooms. I also support funds going towards boating safety and marine patrol operations. Please vote in favor of HB1477.
Our lakes need protection and oversight. Their economic impact is immense.
I think it is important that we learn more about controlling Cyanobacteria blooms across the state. When there is a bloom it is costly on the state and communities to get it under control. The extra money from this bill would help education and elimination. I also think it is important to fund boating and navigation safety. Thank you,
Must keep the spread of cyanobacteria under control at all costs and support navigation safety .
Anchored seasonal platforms are proliferating on NH lakes and ponds. It is appropriate to require a permit for them and to charge a modest fee that will improve navigational safety and strengthen efforts to prevent/reduce harmful cyanobacteria blooms. Cyanobacteria blooms are a real threat to NH's tourism economy, recreational opportunities and property values. The State should continue to help lake and pond associations to prevent/reduce these blooms through the Cyanobacteria Fund. Users of seasonal platforms are significant beneficiaries of healthier, safer lakes and ponds and a $50 permit fee is just and reasonable.
Neonictinoid treated seeds can leach the poison into groundwater .Limiting the use of such protects the lakes natural ecosystems.
I strongly support this bill as it provides funding to improve both water safety and water quality. Everyone who enjoys the beauty of our pristine lakes should share in the responsibility of caring for them. Living on Lake Sunapee I see many examples of irresponsible boaters, either through ignorance or intent, who need to be better educated on safe and accountable boating. Currently our marine patrol is seriously understaffed and this bill will aid is financing additional staff. The importance of studying cyanobacteria and looking for solutions to this increasing danger to our lakes cannot be underestimated. Our lakes are an invaluable resource and ensuring their long term health is imperative. This bill will help fund these efforts. Again I strongly support this bill and ask for your support as well. Thank you for listening.
We desperately need more funding for Marine Patrol and for the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Fund. This is an easy and pretty painless way to get more funds. The number of rafts floated on our lakes has increased dramatically in the last 10 years making access to some shores are like an obstacle course. Perhaps with this fee, people might share their rafts rather than each house having one or two of their own.
I support this bill because New Hampshire’s lakes are vital public assets that attract visitors and new residents, driving economic growth that supports our businesses, schools, and communities. As our state grows, attracting new residents also strengthens the workforce needed for both small and large businesses to thrive. Requiring anchored seasonal platforms, including inflatables, to obtain a modest $50 permit is a reasonable way to manage increased use of public waters. The permit revenue supports marine patrol operations, boating safety enforcement, and cyanobacteria mitigation, helping protect both public safety and water quality. This balanced approach preserves our lakes for current and future generations.
I support this bill presuming it’s made clearer that only items fixed and not moved during the season are applicable (eg a floating island that is installed at the beginning of a season and not removed until the end). This should not apply to rafts and floats that are tethered to a dock and untied from time to time to be used on a boat or out on the lake. Thank you.
My wife and I support HB 1477 which requires a $50 permit for anchored seasonal platforms, including inflatables. The revenues will be split evenly between the Navigation Safety Fund and the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund. We live on Silver Lake in Madison which experienced its first toxic Cyanobacteria bloom in September, 2023. We moved to New Hampshire in 2016. At that time, there weren’t any recorded toxic cyanobacteria blooms on Silver Lake nor do we recall seeing any anchored seasonal platforms on the lake. We kayak on the lake from ice out into November. Anchored inflatables have become common since 2016 ranging from swimming pads to trampolines to 20 foot diameter swans to massive modular systems with slides and even climbing walls. These inflatables negatively impact the health of the lake by blocking sunlight killing off plants beneath them which provide oxygen and food for fish; discourage habitats for animals like loons and smallmouth bass; negatively effect tourism and property values for those seeking the pristine nature experience expected in New Hampshire. Please support the bill to provide resources to fund efforts to combat cyanobacteria and keep our NH lakes healthy and pristine.
NH Marine Patrol needs the additional support that HB1477 provides along with a new sustainable funding source to address cyanobacterial blooms. Additional Marine Patrol presence on our lakes is needed for water recreation safety and compliance. Anchored seasonal platforms on our waters need more official scrutiny.
Permitting rafts ("seasonal platforms") permits the Dept of Safety and Marine Patrol to know where all rafts are and who owns them. Having half the revenue go to cyano mitigation will help protect our lakes from this threat. I am a farf owner and glad to pay this fee to support both reasons for establishing it.