Committee Summary for House Environment and Agriculture (01/13/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB11431 00:10:26.240 - 8:05:57 AM	Public Hearing	restricting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
HB1143 00:37:54.640 - 8:33:25 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the remediation of mold in rental housing.	King, Seth(R)[B+]2025
HB1086 02:22:21.040 - 10:17:52 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the sale of certain agricultural seeds treated with neonicotinoids.	MacDonald, John(R)[B+]2025
HB1621 04:31:00.720 - 12:26:31 PM	Public Hearing	requiring a baseline environmental impact study to be completed prior to development of certain manufacturing and storage facilities.	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025
HB1622 05:36:08.718 - 1:31:39 PM	Public Hearing	requiring the state to develop additional solid waste disposal capacity.	Haskins, Linda(D)[F]2025

HB11431: Representative John T. McDonald, Carroll District 6 (Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro, NH) Support00:10:26.240 - 8:05:57 AM; Representative McDonald introduced HB11431, a bipartisan bill to restrict neonicotinoid insecticides due to their toxicity to beneficial insects, aquatic life, and persistence in soils and waters. He highlighted pollinator loss impacting agriculture, ecosystems, and tourism, and noted exposure in pregnant women and children. After collaboration with the Department of Agriculture's subcommittee, he filed an amendment narrowing the bill to focus on reducing rather than banning use, adding exemptions, flexibility, rulemaking authority, and transparency measures. He emphasized that further studies are unnecessary given existing research, including a 2019 Dartmouth study, and that neighboring states have already imposed limits. McDonald compared neonicotinoids to DDT, urging adoption of the amendment and passage of the bill to prevent irreversible harm.
HB11431: Representative German Information Only00:16:24.959 - 8:11:55 AM; Representative German asked how the amended bill would fit into the regional landscape of New England and Northeast states, noting challenges for a small state like New Hampshire to influence markets alone. McDonald responded that the bill mirrors restrictions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, with adjustments for New Hampshire specifics like waivers and exemptions.
HB11431: Representative King Information Only00:16:24.959 - 8:11:55 AM; Representative King inquired about the penalties section, which designates use by a natural person as a misdemeanor and otherwise a felony. McDonald explained that companies should be held to a higher standard due to their education and licensing. In follow-up, King asked about punishing companies, and McDonald noted that companies can be charged as entities, similar to practices in Massachusetts.
HB11431: Representative Vixby (Bixby) Information Only00:17:22.799 - 8:12:53 AM; Representative Vixby asked for expansion on documentation of neonicotinoids' effects on human health. McDonald referenced a 2014-2015 Dartmouth study finding neonicotinoids in pregnant women's systems. In follow-up, Vixby asked about specific health effects, and McDonald stated that as pesticides, they pose health risks inside a pregnant woman's system.
HB11431: Representative Scully Information Only00:18:27.919 - 8:13:58 AM; Representative Scully asked about current use of neonicotinoids in New Hampshire and its prevalence. McDonald replied that it's widespread, available at hardware stores for plants, often overused, and employed by farmers, though alternatives exist for seeds and products. In follow-up, Scully clarified if it's used on food crops or ornamentals, and McDonald confirmed it's used on everything.
HB11431: Representative Howard Information Only00:19:30.640 - 8:15:01 AM; Representative Howard asked for the brand name or shelf name of the pesticide. McDonald clarified it's neonicotinoid, checked on product labels, and noted that stores like Lowe's, Home Depot, and Walmart are banning or removing these chemicals.
HB11431: Representative Scott Information Only00:21:21.200 - 8:16:52 AM; Representative Scott raised concerns about criminal penalties for possessing or using already purchased products, suggesting the Department of Agriculture should exercise discretion. McDonald hoped for common sense in enforcement.
HB11431: Representative German (follow-up) Information Only00:21:21.200 - 8:16:52 AM; Representative German asked about alternatives to neonicotinoids, noting they were developed as less harmful to humans than previous treatments. McDonald deferred to experts for details on current market alternatives for non-licensed users.
HB11431: Representative Patenzi Information Only00:22:25.679 - 8:17:56 AM; Representative Patenzi mentioned that companies like Lowe's, Home Depot, and Miracle-Gro have removed neonicotinoids from products, citing NIH studies on problems, and asked if McDonald was familiar. McDonald confirmed awareness and saw it as supporting evidence of the chemical's dangers.
HB11431: Representative Bixby (follow-up) Information Only00:23:24.559 - 8:18:55 AM; Representative Bixby asked about enforcement of licensed-only use, whether via sales bans or point-of-use checks. McDonald stated enforcement would be handled by the Department of Agriculture, similar to other restricted pesticides. In follow-up, Bixby confirmed rulemaking for enforcement.
HB11431: Representative Howard (follow-up) Information Only00:24:35.520 - 8:20:06 AM; Representative Howard confirmed the systemic dangers to ecosystems, particularly pollinators like bees, and runoff into lakes, rivers, and soils. McDonald agreed, noting hive infections and reduced worm populations. In further follow-up, Howard asked about amendment exceptions, and McDonald explained they resulted from subcommittee input balancing pros and cons, including concerns from lumber and veterinary sectors.
HB11431: Representative Bixby (final) Information Only00:26:48.000 - 8:22:19 AM; Representative Bixby asked if the Pesticide Control Board and Department support the bill. McDonald believed the subcommittee would support it, though the board might remain neutral.
HB11431: David Russo, NH Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food, Division of Pesticide Control Information Only00:27:58.480 - 8:23:29 AM; David Russo provided background on neonicotinoids as insecticides disrupting insect nervous systems, used in crops, turf, ornamentals, pets, and more. He distinguished between more and less toxic groups and explained New Hampshire's general use (available to public) vs. restricted use (licensed only) classifications. The department remains neutral but appreciates collaboration; most neonicotinoids are currently general use, and restricting them would limit to licensed users, protecting agriculture. He noted the Pesticide Control Board's existing rulemaking authority to impose restrictions without new legislation, emphasizing reliance on federal EPA decisions and lower mammalian toxicity compared to older pesticides. Russo suggested the board could act on concerns to protect pollinators and water resources, tracking global and local trends like EU bans since 2013-2018.
HB11431: Representative Comto Information Only00:32:42.799 - 8:28:13 AM; Representative Comto asked about the Pesticide Control Board's role in setting policies and restricting pesticides. Russo confirmed their rulemaking authority and past restrictions on federally allowed pesticides. Comto followed up on why legislation is needed if the board can act, and Russo explained the bill elevates the issue, though the board relies on federal EPA and could proceed independently.
HB11431: Representative Patenza (follow-up) Information Only00:34:19.839 - 8:29:50 AM; Representative Patenza clarified that rules stem from enabling legislation but noted the board can restrict pesticides without a bill. Russo affirmed this for pesticides. Patenza followed up on global history of bans (EU 2013-2018) and human health impacts beyond pollinators. Russo acknowledged tracking issues, preferring U.S. EPA's thorough risk-based approach over EU's.
HB11431: Unidentified Representative (likely Bixby) Information Only00:36:19.440 - 8:31:50 AM; The representative asked about fallout from restrictions or bans elsewhere, such as impacts on crop quality or agriculture. Russo cited a Connecticut example where beets required neonicotinoids as the best option, leading to allowances, and noted some Northeast states moving toward restrictions without major negative local effects.
HB1143: Director (from NH Department of Agriculture) Information Only00:37:54.640 - 8:33:25 AM; The director explains the regulatory environment for pesticides in the Northeast, noting that restrictions typically apply to specific uses like agriculture while limiting non-agricultural applications. He describes how restricted use pesticides are managed in New Hampshire, requiring licensed dealers and applicators, preventing off-the-shelf sales at stores. He discusses the bill's goal to restrict outdoor consumer use while allowing exceptions like pet flea treatments. He addresses inventory management upon restriction, stating manufacturers usually take back products or disposal plans are implemented. He confirms that most neonics are general use but would become more expensive as restricted products, similar to agricultural pesticides.
HB1143: Unidentified Representative Information Only00:42:17.760 - 8:37:48 AM; The representative inquires about the impact of restrictions on costs, noting that restricted use products often require verification and are pricier than general use ones.
HB1143: Representative Scully Information Only00:43:18.160 - 8:38:49 AM; Representative Scully asks if there is a demonstrated need to restrict neonics due to adverse effects on pollinators in New Hampshire, referencing EPA recommendations for further restrictions. He follows up on the department's authority to impose penalties, learning about fines up to $1,000 and involvement of the attorney general for misdemeanors and felonies.
HB1143: Representative Howard Information Only00:44:22.480 - 8:39:53 AM; Representative Howard questions whether legislation should guide rules to keep the committee involved, expressing concern about being out of the loop if not legislated. The director references the amendment, suggesting it improves the bill by directing the Department of Agriculture to reclassify neonics as restricted use limited to certified applicators.
HB1143: Representative German Information Only00:47:24.480 - 8:42:55 AM; Representative German asks about two regulatory approaches: starting with maximal freedom and adding restrictions (US style) versus banning first and adding exceptions (EU style, e.g., for sugar beets). The director notes unfamiliarity with the ban-first method and warns against broad bans in agriculture without review, as they could disrupt enterprises. He advocates for board review to identify appropriate restrictions.
HB1143: Andrea Lamro, New Hampshire Lakes Support00:49:35.520 - 8:45:06 AM; Andrea Lamro, president and policy advocate of New Hampshire Lakes, a nonprofit representing lake associations and individuals, supports the bill to reduce neonic use due to impacts on insects and aquatic invertebrates. She highlights emerging science linking neonics to changes in aquatic ecosystems that favor cyanobacteria blooms, which are toxic, affect public health, water use, tourism, and property values. She thanks Representative McDonald and urges support for this and the next bill.
HB1143: Kyle Lombard, New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands Oppose00:53:50.319 - 8:49:21 AM; Kyle Lombard, forester and forest entomologist, opposes the bill despite supporting most of it, as it would restrict neonic access for homeowners treating invasive pests like hemlock woolly adelgid and emerald ash borer. He explains neonics are systemic, low-toxicity (EPA slightly toxic category), applied to tree bases to target pests without harming non-target insects or pollinators when used properly. Requiring licenses would force homeowners to hire applicators or use more toxic alternatives like organophosphates or pyrethroids, increasing environmental harm. He notes no state requires homeowner licenses for such treatments and suggests an exception for unlicensed invasive species management would resolve their objection. He addresses state land exceptions as already aligning with their strict policies.
HB1143: Carol Foss, New Hampshire Audubon Support01:13:51.760 - 9:09:22 AM; Carol Foss, senior adviser for science and policy at New Hampshire Audubon, supports the bill, urging collaboration to address forest management concerns without discarding it. She describes neonics as broad-spectrum, mimicking nicotine to overexcite insect nerves, causing paralysis and death. She notes limited research on sublethal human health effects but mentions overdoses can be fatal, including suicide cases. She emphasizes public focus on charismatic or annoying insects but underscores insects' critical role in ecosystems.
HB1143: Unknown Speaker Support01:16:06.320 - 9:11:37 AM; The speaker discusses the importance of insects in ecosystems, noting their role in food chains, pollination, and decomposition. They highlight the global insect apocalypse and how the bill reduces the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are water-soluble and affect non-target organisms. The bill includes reasonable exclusions for appropriate uses. They mention the variety of neonicotinoids and support the bill while hoping for workarounds for pests like hemlock woolly adelgid.
HB1143: Unknown Speaker Support01:16:59.280 - 9:12:30 AM; During questioning, the speaker addresses the impact of declining insect populations on birds, citing the loss of three billion birds and rapid declines in aerial insectivores linked to neonic use, with references in their written testimony. They respond to concerns about balancing pesticide use for tree protection versus natural processes, explaining that species naturally disappear and re-emerge, and ecosystems adapt without human intervention. On the building industry, they acknowledge potential impacts but emphasize that human values drive interventions, and there are other threats like fungi and diseases; they support targeted uses and workarounds. Regarding birds, they note it's primarily a food supply issue and will discuss further in later testimony.
HB1143: Chuck Southro, Apple Hill Farm, Concord Oppose01:24:01.040 - 9:19:32 AM; Chuck Southro, with his wife Diane, owns Apple Hill Farm in Concord and opposes the bill, though he finds the amendment better. He believes the issue should have been handled by the Pesticide Control Board, where a subcommittee already formed and developed amendments after the representative approached the commissioner.
HB1143: Nissa Marks Information Only01:25:54.880 - 9:21:25 AM; Nissa Marks begins her testimony, but no substantive content is provided in the transcript beyond the introduction.
HB1143: Nissa Marks, Sweet View Farm, Heniker, New Hampshire; Wildlife Biologist Support01:26:18.159 - 9:21:49 AM; Nissa Marks testified in support of HB1143, drawing from her experience as a small market gardener at Sweet View Farm in Heniker and her background as a wildlife biologist. She explained that neonicotinoids (neonics) are harmful to wildlife, water quality, and the environment while being inefficient for crop yields, citing USDA science showing no measurable or inconsistent impacts. Neoncs kill pollinators like bees, essential for crops such as zucchini, pumpkins, blueberries, apples, watermelon, and cantaloupe, leading to potential hand pollination which is labor-intensive and costly. They also kill beneficial insects that control pests like aphids, and pests are developing resistance. On human health, she noted neonics in over 95% of pregnant women, linked to birth defects and adult issues like reproductive and metabolic problems, as they are absorbed into plant tissue and cannot be washed off. She shared an anecdote from California about seeing dead or convulsing bees near sprayed fields. During Q&A, she discussed how pesticides benefit big agriculture more than small NH farms (over 75% don't make a living from farming), advocated for integrated pest management and crop rotation over preventative neonics, and confirmed studies showing ecosystem recovery after neonic bans, including bird populations rebounding.
HB1143: Jesse Deuke, Hollow Hill Farm, Tamworth, New Hampshire; USDA Wildlife Biologist Support01:37:45.520 - 9:33:16 AM; Jesse Deuke, owner of Hollow Hill Farm, a small commercial apple orchard in Tamworth, and USDA wildlife biologist, supported HB1143 by highlighting neonics' impacts on pollinators critical to apple production. He stated that bees exposed to neonics pollinate poorly or die, reducing bee visitation, seed counts, fruit size, and harvest quality, with no substitutes for pollination. Economically, pollinators add $20-30 billion to US agriculture annually, vital for NH's apples, family farms, agritourism, and rural communities; even small yield drops can bankrupt small orchards. While farmers need pest tools, neonics' prophylactic use causes long-term harm outweighing benefits, especially with safer integrated pest management alternatives used at his farm. He urged limits on neonics during bloom and non-essential uses to protect pollinators, agriculture, food systems, and rural livelihoods.
HB1143: Rosemary Mauy, Policy Director, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Support01:40:25.440 - 9:35:56 AM; Rosemary Mauy from the Xerces Society supported HB1143, emphasizing the organization's science-driven mission to protect invertebrates like pollinators. She noted alarming declines in NH pollinators: 40% of 16 bumblebee species severely declining or extinct, 85 of 120 butterfly species declining, evidenced by reduced windshield insect impacts. Neoncs, especially nitro-class ones, are major contributors, toxic at nanogram levels (15,000 times smaller than a salt grain), causing lethality and sublethal effects like disrupted foraging, reproduction, and immunity, weakening colonies. She supported restrictions due to misuse risks, especially in consumer turf and ornamental uses for aesthetics, which are unnecessary and dangerous. Environmental detections include harmful aquatic levels in CT and NH's Connecticut River, and in VT/MA bee pollen. On alternatives, neonics are phasing out in turf due to grub resistance, with less bee-toxic diamides available. She referenced a 2019 review but no recent UNH empirical data.
HB1143: Kaylin Grubber (Greyber), Nurse Support01:45:07.119 - 9:40:38 AM; Kaylin Grubber, a nurse, supported HB1143 wearing a t-shirt about NH species hemorrhaging, framing insect declines as an emergency. She argued pesticides fail long-term due to faster resistance in pests (which reproduce more) than beneficials, urging a shift from pesticides generally. Nature-based solutions like regenerative farming harness ecosystems' self-regulation, better than interventions that haven't reduced pests since Silent Spring—instead, pests like mice, rats, ticks, mosquitoes, and agricultural ones have increased despite rising pesticide use. Pesticides might be a toolkit tool but should be phased out for better yields, human health, and farmer benefits over time. In Q&A, she countered concerns about slow natural recovery by noting pesticide escalation hasn't helped, leading to beneficial crashes and pest booms.
HB1143: Francie Vonmer Support01:49:05.760 - 9:44:36 AM; Francie Vonmer yielded her main time but added a brief statement supporting HB1143, highlighting native bees' efficiency as pollinators. She noted the blue orchard bee: 243 pollinate one acre of apples, versus thousands of honeybees per hive. Neoncs appear in honey via contaminated pollen and nectar, the sole food for pollinators, especially super-efficient native species.
HB1143: David Trumbull, town of Ware, owner of Goodear Farm Support01:51:54.000 - 9:47:25 AM; David Trumbull, a 40-year certified organic farmer, testified about the severe dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides to land and water ecosystems. He explained that these pesticides target the base of the food chain—insects on land and zooplankton in water—threatening over 80% of land species and leading to collapses that could end human life within months without insects. He highlighted contamination of groundwater, lakes, and streams, impacting fish and ultimately humans. Trumbull advocated for alternatives through state-sponsored research on sustainable and organic farming, noting that Europe, including France, has banned these without harming agriculture. He emphasized that neonics kill beneficial insects, build resistance, and reduce yields, and are 1,000 times more toxic than DDT. He discussed human health impacts, with 90% of pregnant women and over half the US population exposed, and neighboring states adopting restrictions or bans. He provided written testimony and noted the seed bill's relevance, as one seed can kill 250,000 bees.
HB1143: Tanya Alvi, Wolfboro Support02:00:57.280 - 9:56:28 AM; Tanya Alvi, who grew up on Lake Wentworth, shared personal observations of declining wildlife, including fireflies, minnows, and birds, despite her 10+ years of organic gardening without chemicals. She hired researchers confirming neonicotinoids as a leading cause of aquatic and terrestrial devastation. Alvi criticized reliance on rulemaking or EPA guidelines, arguing they have failed to act, and urged legislation for clear action. She highlighted the chemical's water-solubility causing drift across property lines, contaminating neighbors' lands, waterways, plants, and pollinators regardless of boundaries. Referencing Quebec's evidence and thousands of studies, she pleaded for lawmakers to protect ecosystems and human lives at the food chain's core, offering to provide her studies.
HB1143: Judy Lindsay, Candia Support02:06:20.000 - 10:01:51 AM; Judy Lindsay, a teacher and regular citizen from Candia, supported HB1143 to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides due to their threat to wildlife, especially beneficial insects, pollinators, bees, birds, fish, and aquatic life. She recounted how her students once observed abundant monarch butterflies metamorphosing from milkweed caterpillars in class, releasing them into a butterfly garden, but now sees only a handful each summer. She shared a local story of a beekeeper losing nearly all her honeybees to a neighbor's lawn pesticide use, impacting the local economy. Lindsay stressed the known detrimental effects of these toxins and the wisdom of reducing and restricting them wherever possible.
HB1143: Representative John T. McDonald, sponsor, Wolffboro Support02:16:34.718 - 10:12:05 AM; Representative John T. McDonald introduced HB1086 to prohibit the sale of certain agricultural seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides, requesting amendment 2026-0068h. The amendment changes 'transport' to 'distribute' and adds commissioner authority for conditions, limitations, documentation, and forms to implement waivers. He described the bipartisan bill as stewardship for New Hampshire's natural resources, noting personal observations of fewer bees, monarch butterflies, and insects compared to past years. McDonald explained neonics as systemic pesticides absorbed by plants, making all parts toxic, with one seed devastating pollinators, birds, and contaminating soil and water. He highlighted risks from spilled seeds to birds and animals, rain runoff, and soil absorption, citing EPA data showing little benefit to soybean yields. He criticized EPA loopholes exempting seed treatments and urged passing the amended bill for state oversight to protect health and environment.
HB1143: Alan Wyman, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food Information Only02:21:38.399 - 10:17:09 AM; Alan Wyman from the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food was introduced as the next speaker to provide testimony on HB1086, but no further details of his remarks are included in the transcript.
HB1086: Alan Wyman, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food Oppose02:22:21.040 - 10:17:52 AM; Alan Wyman, the state seed control official, testifies that the Department of Agriculture opposes HB1086 due to significant implementation challenges. He explains that the bill's waiver process, inspections, and enforcement would require substantial resources, including full-time employees for site visits, risk assessments, and monitoring hundreds of plots across the state. He notes the fiscal note underestimates costs, as his division was not adequately consulted, and highlights the need for detailed planning around pollination, water quality, and migratory patterns. Wyman emphasizes that without additional capacity, effective implementation to address public concerns about bees and water quality is impossible. During questioning, he clarifies that challenges arise from conditional approvals via waivers, not outright prohibition, and estimates one additional staff could help but stresses the division's under-resourcing for multiple programs.
HB1086: Scott Sanderson, Conservation Law Foundation Support02:44:10.479 - 10:39:41 AM; Scott Sanderson, Director of Conservation Law Foundation's Farm and Food Program, supports HB1086, emphasizing its narrow focus on prohibiting neonicotinoid-treated corn, wheat, and soy seeds, which research shows provide no economic benefits to farmers. He highlights successful similar approaches in New York, Vermont, and Quebec, where waivers for emergencies have been rarely used, leading to lower seed costs and steady yields without treated seeds. Sanderson notes the bill allows alternatives like anthranilic diamides, does not affect other seeds or farmers, and provides a transition until 2029, aligning with neighboring states' timelines. He addresses waiver processes involving pest risk assessments under integrated pest management, projecting minimal requests based on Quebec's experience. During questions, he discusses exposure risks to pollinators, lack of necessity for treatments, market drivers by seed companies, and environmental persistence of neonicotinoids.
HB1086: Tanya Albi Support04:05:45.520 - 12:01:16 PM; Tanya Albi testifies in support of HB1086, representing farmers' interests and emphasizing the critical role of pollinators in increasing yields and crop quality at no cost. She argues that neonicotinoid seed treatments kill pollinators and beneficial insects, contaminate soil and waterways, and offer no proven yield benefits despite higher costs, citing Quebec studies showing equivalent yields with untreated seeds and few waiver requests. Albi stresses that the bill reduces seed costs for farmers, preserves soil health, protects free pollination services, and safeguards New Hampshire's natural resources, aligning with successful policies in Quebec, New York, and Vermont. She urges passage as a balanced, practical measure for long-term food security.
HB1086: Nissa Marks, Sweet View Farm Support04:10:31.600 - 12:06:02 PM; Nissa Marks, a wildlife biologist and farmer, supports HB1086, reiterating neonicotinoids' impacts on agriculture, ecology, and human health, particularly via seed coatings which account for 80% of U.S. pesticide use on commodity crops. She notes preemptive treatments accelerate pesticide resistance and provide no economic benefits, per a 2020 Cornell review of over 1,100 studies. Marks highlights severe wildlife risks: a single treated seed can kill 80,000 bees or a songbird, with 90-99.5% of the pesticide entering the environment inefficiently. She addresses soil half-lives (minimum 3 years), earthworm declines, drinking water contamination affecting 37 NH suppliers, and EPA recognition of threats to over 200 endangered species. Marks points to bans in Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, and seed-specific laws in New York and Vermont driving alternatives, and widespread food contamination per Harvard studies.
HB1086: Carol Foss, New Hampshire Audubon Support04:17:27.920 - 12:12:58 PM; Carol Foss, Senior Adviser for Science and Policy at New Hampshire Audubon, supports HB1086, explaining how neonicotinoids from seed coatings enter the environment via machinery-generated dust and water runoff during germination, affecting large proportions outside the target crop. She argues legislation provides clear direction to the pesticides division, complementing rulemaking authority like 'bones' to 'muscles,' ensuring implementation without ambiguity, even if some view it as redundant.
HB1086: Rosemary Muy, Policy Director, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Support04:20:20.000 - 12:15:51 PM; Rosemary Muy testified in support of HB1086, emphasizing the lack of economic benefit from neonicotinoid seed treatments backed by research. She highlighted market consolidation where seed companies also manufacture pesticides, reducing competition and options for untreated seeds. She noted increasing availability of untreated hybrid corn through suppliers listed by American Bird Conservancy and positioned New Hampshire's potential restrictions as part of a regional and national wave of action, with similar bills in states like Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, and Colorado. New York’s Cornell Extension is developing farmer tools, including waiver processes. During Q&A, she addressed concerns about reverting to worse pesticides, explaining neonics are not effective early in the growth cycle and do not replace other pesticide uses; Quebec's model shows farmers moving away from insecticides or to less toxic diamides. She confirmed minimal benefits of seed coatings, driven by corporate interests, and noted EPA rulemaking on worker protections due to neonics' harms, including environmental incidents like the Nebraska contamination from treated seed disposal.
HB1621: Representative Perez, Bill Sponsor Support04:31:00.720 - 12:26:31 PM; Representative Perez introduced HB1621, sponsored bipartisanly at constituents' request, to require environmental impact studies for facilities over 50,000 square feet, covering water, air, soil, noise, and light. She cited the Saint-Gobain contamination in Merrimack as a preventable catastrophe if studies were required at ownership or use changes. The bill mandates initial studies and repeats after five years or changes to establish baselines and predict impacts, supporting informed decisions, compliance, and stakeholder engagement. She addressed DES opposition due to costs but argued for action given gaps in current regulations, like non-mandated air resources and lack of aquifer protection. She suggested using the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program for certified testing to minimize state burden and noted local companies could expand services. As a former nurse, she emphasized statewide aquifer pollution and the need to protect water. In Q&A, she agreed 'unreasonable adverse impacts' needs refinement, explained noise/light inclusions for unknown facility types/locations, affirmed human health costs outweigh fiscal ones, suggested amending five-year updates to start post-production and extend to 10 years if no impacts, confirmed greenhouses over 50,000 sq ft would be included with mitigation possible, and noted monitoring wells are not required. She supported focusing on high-impact manufacturing and pushing DES for better processes.
HB1621: Representative Wendy Thomas, Town of Merrimack Support04:51:45.760 - 12:47:16 PM; Representative Thomas from Merrimack testified strongly in support, calling Merrimack the 'poster child' for the bill's necessity. She described severe contamination from Saint-Gobain: wells unusable (her family on bottled water for seven years), unsafe river swimming, PFAS in wildlife/fish (catch-and-release only), soil polluted by soot particulate from nightly burns driving PFAS into produce, eggs, and meat at trillion-level concentrations, leading to resident illnesses like cancer. She argued preventive guardrails are cost-effective and suggested amendments: add energy usage (to protect health/welfare) and specify wetlands studies, as facilities often plow over cheap wetland land. She referenced Senate discussions on data centers needing similar impact assessments. In Q&A, she detailed the timeline: pre-Saint-Gobain was Chemfab using similar chemical processes; contamination ongoing 7-9 years, with state reluctance to clean soil; shared a personal story of documenting unsafe practices at Chemfab, including worker exposure to toluene, and the company's pattern of polluting other states before Merrimack.
HB1621: DJ Burke, Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire (BIA) Oppose04:58:24.878 - 12:53:55 PM; DJ Burke opposed HB1621, arguing it adds costs to state and private sector, increases regulatory burden, and causes delays. He noted regulatory burden as a top business complaint alongside energy and workforce issues, calling it an 'inch bill' creeping up costs and eroding New Hampshire's business-friendly status. He cited recent manufacturer exits partly due to such burdens, while other states offer incentives; the bill would require two additional DES staff. It punishes expanding businesses via building permit triggers, not just new ones. In Q&A, he lacked exact numbers on >50,000 sq ft facilities but noted expansions apply; affirmed oversight exists for hazardous waste; argued healthcare costs rise if businesses leave and jobs are lost; said no solid metric predicts polluters, existing permitting covers risks; clarified New Hampshire's unique manufacturing reliance and energy costs differ from comparators, rejecting analogies to lax regulations like India's; noted no huge manufacturing influx despite quality of life/income tax advantages; supported business success for jobs/happiness but sees legislative hostility; equated all businesses to one polluter as unfair, as most comply.
HB1621: Representative Rosemary Rung, Town of Merrimack Support05:13:54.160 - 1:09:25 PM; Representative Rung from Merrimack supported the bill's intent for early public communication on environmental impacts, citing Saint-Gobain's failed post-contamination community advisory committee. Drawing from 15 years as a public affairs leader at a major chemical company managing sites, she suggested tightening the broad definition on page 1 line 10, removing or adjusting the 50,000 sq ft limit as smaller facilities can have high impacts based on materials, not size. She advocated describing expected operations (e.g., odor, solid waste tons/disposal) in statements, noting DES regulations may not cover changes post-establishment. Updates should trigger on use/ownership changes, not arbitrary five years. She recommended a subcommittee to refine details. In Q&A, she proposed raw materials as the key criterion over size, referencing EPA risk management plans for toxic/flammable chemicals regardless of facility scale. She viewed the bill's value in public informing over regulation (duplicating phase I/II assessments, permitting, zoning), potentially driving legislation; affirmed value in assessing cumulative impacts to influence business decisions and build community relations for prevention.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:23:29.920 - 1:19:00 PM; Jeff Martz introduced himself and stated that DES is not taking a position on HB1621 but offered to answer questions. He noted his experience with sites like Senobane and PAS, and managing the Cobain site. During Q&A, he discussed the bill's broad criteria requiring expertise in areas like light and noise, which DES lacks, and that current staff are maxed out. He supported the fiscal note's proposal for two additional environmental scientists. He explained DES does not currently accredit environmental companies but evaluates submissions based on professional stamps. He mentioned reviewing hundreds of contaminated sites and that adding environmental impact statements would increase workload significantly. On consulting other agencies for expertise, he acknowledged it might be possible but would still add coordination time and burden.
HB1621: Committee Member (Unnamed) Information Only05:24:30.000 - 1:20:01 PM; The committee member questioned the fiscal note's need for two additional scientists, asking if the work could be absorbed into existing functions. They also inquired about the number of 500,000 square foot facilities anticipated and how many environmental studies DES currently evaluates.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:24:30.000 - 1:20:01 PM; Responding to the question, Martz reiterated the broad criteria and lack of in-house experts for light and noise, emphasizing the need for additional capacity due to maxed-out bureaus.
HB1621: Committee Member (Unnamed) Information Only05:25:37.840 - 1:21:08 PM; The committee member expressed difficulty accepting the need for new hires and followed up on the number of facilities and current environmental studies evaluated by DES.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:26:47.120 - 1:22:18 PM; Martz discussed the lack of an accreditation process for environmental companies at DES, contrasting it with requirements for professional engineers and geologists in contaminated sites. He noted hundreds of sites under review in his bureau alone.
HB1621: Committee Member (Unnamed) Information Only05:26:47.120 - 1:22:18 PM; The committee member asked if having a list of accredited companies would be useful for the department.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:27:38.958 - 1:23:09 PM; Martz indicated that adding noise specialists would be outside DES's day-to-day work.
HB1621: Representative KTO (Unnamed) Information Only05:27:38.958 - 1:23:09 PM; Representative KTO thanked Martz and asked about companies like Sanborn Head, which are approved for remediation reports, and whether they could handle environmental impact studies instead of an accreditation program.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:28:42.718 - 1:24:13 PM; Martz explained that different disciplines like professional engineers, geologists, and wetland scientists have licensing requirements that could apply. He confirmed reviewing hundreds of submissions and that environmental impact statements would add a significant burden.
HB1621: Committee Member (Unnamed) Information Only05:29:34.878 - 1:25:05 PM; The committee member suggested that such reviews might eventually reduce DES's workload.
HB1621: Representative Germana Information Only05:29:34.878 - 1:25:05 PM; Representative Germana referenced HB215's language for consulting other departments like DOT, DNCR for expertise on infrastructure, noise, and light pollution, asking if DES could draw on existing state agency resources without hiring new staff.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:30:32.000 - 1:26:03 PM; Martz noted possible experts at DOT but emphasized that coordination would still add workload and time diverted from other projects. He confirmed the fiscal note's need for additional staff.
HB1621: Representative Germana Information Only05:31:34.480 - 1:27:05 PM; Representative Germana clarified that coordination wouldn't require new hires for the work itself.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:31:34.480 - 1:27:05 PM; Martz reiterated the need for added staff based on the fiscal note.
HB1621: Representative Howard Information Only05:31:34.480 - 1:27:05 PM; Representative Howard asked about a sewage lagoon project and whether the original polluter remains tied to the project under DES regulations.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:32:37.200 - 1:28:08 PM; Martz explained that liability depends on the contaminant, with strict liability on polluters and owners, but complex legal issues arise, including orphan sites from bankrupt entities.
HB1621: Representative Howard Information Only05:32:37.200 - 1:28:08 PM; Representative Howard followed up, asking if the burden of regulation can become the burden of mitigation for the original polluter.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:32:37.200 - 1:28:08 PM; Martz confirmed the original polluter has responsibility but noted challenges with bankrupt or dissolved entities leading to orphan sites.
HB1621: Representative Haskins Information Only05:32:37.200 - 1:28:08 PM; Representative Haskins asked if it makes sense for the applicant or business to bear the cost of investigations.
HB1621: Jeff Martz, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Remediation Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:33:42.080 - 1:29:13 PM; Martz deferred responsibility assignment to the legislature.
HB1622: Representative Haskins Support05:36:08.718 - 1:31:39 PM; Representative Haskins introduced HB1622, clarifying that the intent is not to create new capacity as the state has sufficient until 206, but to inventory over 200 closed or open landfills from DES's website to evaluate suitability for expansion. The bill focuses on existing permitted sites rather than greenfield or brownfields, compiling data on names, addresses, available acreage, and setbacks from water, homes, or airports to rule out unsuitable sites. He distinguished it from a 2024 bill on brownfields and noted no capacity shortfall until at least 2035, with Turnkey expansion providing capacity to 206. Expansions blocked by legal agreements are not considered.
HB1622: Representative Haskins Support05:39:28.240 - 1:34:59 PM; Representative Haskins continues his testimony supporting HB1622, arguing that there are suitable alternative sites for landfills beyond those near pristine lakes in the North Country. He disputes the $28 million fiscal note as unwarranted, noting that no new hires or visits are needed as it uses available data. He offers to amend the bill if DES finds the requirements too onerous, shifting the burden to developers to prove unsuitability of 200 sites. He highlights other solid waste bills, like limiting out-of-state trash and establishing a site evaluation committee, emphasizing the need to assess state capacity before approving new landfills to avoid environmental risks to lakes.
HB1622: Representative Patenza Information Only05:41:45.920 - 1:37:16 PM; Representative Patenza questions Representative Haskins on whether existing sites were carefully studied and found suitable by DES, noting similarity to language in Senator Pearl's bill.
HB1622: Representative Germana Information Only05:41:45.920 - 1:37:16 PM; Representative Germana seeks clarification that the bill requires using publicly available data to identify potential sites for applicants to evaluate for suitability, which Haskins confirms.
HB1622: Representative Wendy Thomas, town of Merrimack Support05:43:03.120 - 1:38:34 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas supports HB1622, likening it to business best practices of inventorying existing resources before creating new ones. She advocates for an inventory of current landfills to inform future needs.
HB1622: Representative Skully Information Only05:43:03.120 - 1:38:34 PM; Representative Skully questions Thomas on who decides suitability and the criteria, to which Thomas defers to DES.
HB1622: John Swan, founder of Save Forest Lake, Dalton NH Support05:44:48.080 - 1:40:19 PM; John Swan supports HB1622, emphasizing the value of inventorying existing open and closed landfills for potential expansion, especially with advancing technology like waste mining for resource reclamation and cleanup of older sites with PFAS contamination. He addresses capacity unambiguously as tonnage per permits, criticizes DES for failing to enforce operating permits at existing landfills like NCS, references his handout detailing issues including a recent fine, ongoing groundwater contamination, and capacity ambiguities. He urges addressing current regulatory oversight before considering new capacity and hopes the committee reviews his materials.
HB1622: Mike Whimsatt, Director of Waste Management Division, NH DES; Leah McKenna, Bureau Administrator of Solid Waste Management Bureau, NH DES Information Only05:51:41.440 - 1:47:12 PM; Mike Whimsatt states DES takes no position on HB1622 but expresses concerns about the bill's wording imposing significant workload and burden on the department. He explains the large fiscal note due to requirements for compiling detailed information on ~375 sites, including acreage, compliance with setbacks, and potential regulatory compliance, which would require extensive staff time, consultants, site visits, and hydrogeological studies potentially taking years and costing millions. He notes many sites are old, municipally owned, pre-regulation, and unsuitable without in-depth evaluation. DES has an inventory but limited detailed data, especially for inactive sites. He responds to questions on breaking down ownership, application details, and readily available data, indicating it would be labor-intensive with mixed information quality.
HB1622: Representative Comtois Information Only05:56:27.200 - 1:51:58 PM; Representative Comtois questions Whimsatt on ease of identifying municipally vs. privately owned sites among the 375, and whether applications specify full acreage, noting complexities for older sites.
HB1622: Representative Bixby Information Only06:00:27.840 - 1:55:58 PM; Representative Bixby seeks clarification on the usefulness of DES's list for identifying closed landfill sites with potential for future use versus greenfield development.
HB1622: Director Webb (DES) Information Only06:01:13.520 - 1:56:44 PM; Director Webb testified about the challenges in implementing HB1622, estimating costs at $20-28 million due to the need for detailed evaluations of 375 landfill sites, including groundwater and surface water hydrology investigations as required by the bill's language. He explained that much of the data is in paper records, requiring manual review, site visits, and additional research via tax records or town contacts. He noted that amending the bill to focus on a cursory analysis of available acreage and basic suitability could reduce costs but would still require additional staff time, as current DES staff are fully occupied. He emphasized the bill's requirement for applicants to demonstrate no suitable existing sites before greenfield development, which could complicate processes without comprehensive data.
HB1622: Representative Patenza Support06:04:12.480 - 1:59:43 PM; Representative Patenza expressed shock at the $28 million cost estimate, arguing it was inflated and that much data is readily available online from sources like One Stop and federal/NGO sites. He demonstrated obtaining 80% of the required information in an hour using Google Earth and similar tools, suggesting the task could be done for around $280 with basic searches, without needing extensive site evaluations or compliance checks. He urged amending the bill to clarify it's for basic data compilation, not in-depth studies.
HB1622: Representative Gruber Information Only06:05:14.558 - 2:00:45 PM; Representative Gruber shared experience from a Vermont landfill siting process, suggesting a tiered approach starting with a basic cut using paper records and setbacks, without site visits or well drilling. He inquired if a modified bill for an initial screening could identify potential sites (e.g., 4-7 areas with viable land) to inform state decisions on capacity needs, rather than a full permitting review.
HB1622: Representative Scully Information Only06:09:00.878 - 2:04:31 PM; Representative Scully sought clarification on Section 16A's language requiring consideration of all current regulations, which he noted could be costly. He asked if the lack of DES data would make it nearly impossible and expensive for applicants to prove suitability under Section B, to which Director Webb agreed it was possible.
HB1622: Representative Patenza (follow-up) Support06:09:29.920 - 2:05:00 PM; Representative Patenza questioned Director Webb on DES's policy preference for expanding existing landfills over greenfields, citing Senator P's amendment language about the benefits of familiarity with permitted sites and consistency with land use controls. Webb affirmed understanding the concept for operating landfills but clarified it doesn't apply to the 375 facilities in question.
HB1622: Representative Howard Information Only06:11:30.240 - 2:07:01 PM; Representative Howard suggested consulting with DES on bill language to define the desired list and questions needed, aiming for mutual understanding to build a helpful inventory without overburdening the department.
HB1622: Representative Germana Information Only06:13:17.120 - 2:08:48 PM; Representative Germana proposed a two-stage review process starting with 'no-go' criteria from readily available information to narrow sites, allowing applicants to handle further work. He expressed hope for collaboration similar to past efforts.
HB1622: Representative Wheeler Information Only06:14:12.320 - 2:09:43 PM; Representative Wheeler asked about DES's access to acreage and distance data for landfills to homes, water bodies, or airports. Webb explained that current conditions have changed since operations, requiring property record digs. Wheeler clarified the bill seeks existing conditions for expansion suitability and suggested Google Earth for distances, noting no specific expansion size is defined.
HB1622: Representative Wheeler (follow-up) Information Only06:16:44.878 - 2:12:15 PM; Representative Wheeler emphasized finding middle ground to avoid onerous tasks for DES, suggesting the information sought isn't burdensome and could use digital tools, while acknowledging ownership and subdivision details need more than Google Earth but still manageable with staff time.
HB1622: Representative Patenza (final follow-up) Support06:18:33.040 - 2:14:04 PM; Representative Patenza reiterated that the bill seeks a simple Excel spreadsheet of basic data from existing files and online sources, possibly with high school-level help for distances using addresses. He stressed no intent to burden DES and that even with 375 sites, measuring distances isn't trivial but far from $28 million.
HB1622: Chair (closing questions) Information Only06:20:40.000 - 2:16:11 PM; The Chair asked if expanding existing sites is preferable to greenfields, to which Webb agreed in many cases for well-sited, compliant landfills.
HB1622: Henry Veu (Waste Management) Support06:22:48.798 - 2:18:19 PM; Henry Veu, representing Waste Management, agreed that prioritizing expansions or brownfield landfills over greenfields makes sense. He referenced the public benefit demonstration in statutes, suggesting enhancements to prioritize expansions in permitting to signal preferences without complex bills. He noted Waste Management plans to expand at Turnkey (capacity to 2035, extendable further) and has no current need for new sites.
HB1622: Representative Patenza (to Veu) Information Only06:26:03.040 - 2:21:34 PM; Representative Patenza asked about Turnkey's actual capacity beyond permitted 2035 due to input management, confirmed by Veu's reference to Steve Pudge.
HB1622: Representative Patenza (to Veu follow-up) Information Only06:27:09.840 - 2:22:40 PM; Representative Patenza asked if the proposed list would help Waste Management identify expansion opportunities, but Veu declined to respond to the hypothetical as the company isn't planning new expansions.
HB1622: Representative Comtois Information Only06:28:20.798 - 2:23:51 PM; Representative Comtois asked what would happen to waste flow if one or two landfills shut down, given Waste Management's obligation to accept state trash first. Veu noted it depends on municipal decisions and market choices, as they must accept but aren't guaranteed the waste.

Aron, Judy(Chairman)(R)[A-]2025	King, Seth(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Barbour, Liz(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Gruber, James(D)[F]2025	Bixby, Peter(D)[F]2025	Sofikitis, Catherine(D)[D-]2025
Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2025	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Howard, Molly(D)[D]2025	Wheeler, Jonah(D)[D-]2025	Haskins, Linda(D)[F]2025
Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025	Kenny, Catherine(R)[B]2025	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
Miner, Laurence(R)[B]2025