The following article is courtesy of The New Hampshire Bulletin.

Concord—October 14, 2024—Living on Arlington Pond in Salem, Republican Rep. Lorie Ball saw the state’s cyanobacteria problem up close. The blooms, and frustration from neighbors, led her to sponsor a bill to stem the fertilizer runoff that can feed them.

That bill made a rare feat Thursday when the Legislature voted to override Gov. Chris Sununu’s veto of the measure. When it goes into effect at the start of next year, House Bill 1293 will further restrict the use of certain phosphorus-containing fertilizers and prohibit applying fertilizer within 25 feet of a storm drain or elsewhere where it can enter a storm drain.

After another active season of blooms, the issue is poised to return again next session after voters choose their next class of lawmakers and a new governor in November. Sununu cited “impractical” provisions in the bill in explaining his veto.

This summer, he lambasted the Department of Environmental Services for its messaging on cyanobacteria, claiming that cyanobacteria are “not toxic.” The blooms, in fact, often contain toxins.

These toxins can cause rashes, fevers, headaches, mouth blisters, vomiting, acute liver damage, and more, according to DES. They can sometimes lead to neurological issues like numbness and seizures.

Sixty-six cyanobacteria warnings were issued this year as of Oct. 8, according to David Neils, an administrator with the Department of Environmental Services Watershed Management Bureau. The blooms are expected to become more common because of climate change-driven warming.

Lawmakers and state officials have set their eyes on controlling another factor – nutrient runoff – to stave off the blooms. Nutrients like phosphorus are a food source for cyanobacteria.

Rep. Rosemarie Rung, a Merrimack Democrat who was a sponsor of the bill, said the measure was a way “to help limit one of the sources of phosphate that’s going into our water bodies.”

By the time the bill made it to Veto Day Thursday, it had lost the support of one of its sponsors, Rep. Mike Bordes, a Laconia Republican who lives on Paugus Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee.

“We have a major cyanobacteria issue there, but this bill will not help,” he said on the House floor, calling it “toothless.”

Sununu had raised issues with the enforcement, saying “the Department of Agriculture reports that enforcement of this law would be entirely reliant on neighbors telling on neighbors rather than direct action by the agency.”

Ball said the bill was all about education, not about neighbors turning on each other.

“The majority of the people would follow the law if they knew the impact” of the fertilizers, Ball said. She also pointed to the economic effects of the blooms, saying she had been contacted by people who run a children’s camp who were worried about the impact on their water activities, which could manifest in losing out on return business from families.

The bill needed two-thirds support in each chamber to override the veto. It passed 232-99 in the House and 22-1 in the Senate.

What the Bill Does
The bill has a number of provisions. It lowers the phosphate level allowed for retail sale of “no-phosphate” fertilizers. It says that fertilizer can’t be applied to urban turf or a lawn “during heavy rain (equal to or greater than 2 inches in 24 hours) or when heavy rain is predicted,” when the ground is frozen, or when “turf grass is not actively growing.

“Fertilizer can’t be deposited on urban turf or a lawn within 25 feet of a storm drain, “where it can enter a storm drain,” or waters such as rivers, streams, and ponds. It can’t be applied on impervious surfaces like decks, patios, and paved, gravel, or crushed stone driveways; if it is accidentally applied, it must be immediately collected. Golf courses and sod farms using best management practices were exempted from the provisions.

The Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food must design an informational poster “informing the consumer about the environmental threats of run-off and referencing New Hampshire laws relative to fertilizer application,” which must be displayed by retailers selling or offering fertilizer.

Sununu argued the restrictions would put “well-meaning families unintentionally in violation of the law,” pointing to the weather provision that he had said was “vague.”

“Not only are these and a number of other restrictions in this bill highly unreasonable,” he wrote in his veto message, “the Department of Agriculture reports that enforcement of this law would be entirely reliant on neighbors telling on neighbors rather than direct action by the agency.”

Rep. Peter Bixby, a Dover Democrat, said in an email that the bill would be simple for the department, which already regulates fertilizer.

“It is a commonsense consumer education bill that can have a real environmental impact with very low regulatory overhead,” he said. “The Department of Agriculture simply needs to design the educational poster and distribute it as a PDF.”

What’s Next
Sponsors of the fertilizer bill had been ready to revive it next session. With the override, that won’t be necessary, but lawmakers are eyeing other legislation to combat cyanobacteria.

Rung, who has a degree in biochemistry, said she was considering a bill that would prevent the deliberate blowing of yard waste into water bodies, another source of the phosphorus that feeds the bacteria. She said she has heard anecdotally of landscape companies preparing waterside properties blowing leaves into the lake instead of hauling them off-site or composting them.

Lakes are made to absorb natural debris, she said, but “it becomes more of a risk to deliberately put in vegetative debris that nature didn’t put there herself.”

She has also filed a request with the Office of Legislative Services to draft a bill that would create a new conservation license plate and direct the fee toward the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.

“Mitigating cyanobacteria is very expensive,” she said, and this could set up a consistent revenue stream to the fund.

She said she was also working on legislation to raise the maximum administrative fine for violating the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act from $5,000 to $15,000.

“When we see some of the violators around lakes that are violating that act, $5,000 is really nothing to them,” she said.

The department may still opt for a lower fine, but she said it would give the agency more leeway and act as a deterrent to potential violators.

Rung said she has seen a growing understanding of the issue in the state, though more work remains to combat the blooms.

“I’m not happy about the state of cyanobacteria blooms in New Hampshire,” she said, “but at least I’m happy there’s more attention on it because that’s the way we’ll address the issue and hopefully make our lakes safer for everybody.”

Support The New Hampshire Bulletin here.