Committee Summary for House Environment and Agriculture (01/21/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB153 00:00:48.920 - 8:59:59 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing a committee to study adding statewide resources to assist with the investigation, training, prosecution, and prompt response of animal cruelty.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB153 01:27:46.520 - 10:26:57 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing a committee to study adding statewide resources to assist with the investigation, training, prosecution, and prompt response of animal cruelty.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB215 01:39:06.840 - 10:38:17 AM	Public Hearing	requiring a landfill permit applicant to submit a report listing potential harms and benefits of the project.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
HB240 03:04:59.399 - 12:04:10 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to nonpayment of dog licensing fees.	Mannion, Tom(R)[A+]2025
HB201 03:41:27.600 - 12:40:38 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the removal of claws from cats.	Bordes, Mike(R)[C]2025
HB215 05:16:39.440 - 2:15:50 PM	Public Hearing	requiring a landfill permit applicant to submit a report listing potential harms and benefits of the project.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
HB215 06:21:31.400 - 3:20:42 PM	Public Hearing	requiring a landfill permit applicant to submit a report listing potential harms and benefits of the project.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025

HB153: Barbara Coma, representing Belknap 7 Support00:00:48.920 - 8:59:59 AM; Representative Coma introduced the bill, explaining its necessity due to issues with animal cruelty cases and a lack of education among law enforcement. The bill mandates that 20 law enforcement officers in the state receive training on animal cruelty laws, split between 10 from the state police and one sheriff or deputy from each county. The training proposed is an 8-hour course approved by the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council, with a 2-hour refresher every three years. Coma emphasized that this training is a resource and not an additional mandate for action, highlighting the need due to many small towns and communities where local enforcement lacks understanding of animal cruelty laws. An amendment is forthcoming, which has not been finalized yet.
HB153: Representative Haskins Information Only00:02:57.080 - 9:02:08 AM; Representative Haskins inquired about the financial impact of the proposed training, expressing concern over the cost. Representative Coma responded that the financial burden would not be significant as training is already available and would only require an additional course for a limited number of officers.
HB153: Representative Vibe Information Only00:03:44.360 - 9:02:55 AM; Representative Vibe questioned how the bill aligns with the constitutional requirement for due process. Representative Coma explained that the training would aid in ensuring due process by educating law enforcement on the state's animal cruelty laws, which could help in handling cases appropriately, especially concerning the removal of animals, which applies to livestock as well as pets.
HB153: Representative Miner Information Only00:05:20.960 - 9:04:31 AM; Representative Miner asked if the responsibilities outlined in the bill might overlap with those of Animal Control Officers (ACOs). Representative Coma clarified that the bill does not interfere with ACOs, noting that many rural areas do not have ACOs, and local police departments handle such situations. She provided an example from her town where lack of understanding led to mishandling of a case involving a horse.
HB153: Representative Freeman Information Only00:06:58.560 - 9:06:09 AM; Representative Freeman mentioned that his question was similar to Representative Miner's and was satisfied with the response given.
HB153: Representative Howard Information Only00:07:04.440 - 9:06:15 AM; Representative Howard asked about the connection between the proposed training and its practical application by the broader police force. Representative Coma responded that the specifics of the training would be determined by the Police Standards but emphasized the importance of understanding case prosecution, which often fails at the prosecutor level in animal cruelty cases.
HB153: King Information Only00:08:06.960 - 9:07:17 AM; King inquired about any precedents in statute where the legislature has mandated specific training, indicating a need for clarification on this aspect of the bill.
HB153: Scully Information Only00:08:27.560 - 9:07:38 AM; Scully expressed support for the bill, acknowledging its merit. They asked about the selection process for training within counties and how to ensure trained personnel are known and accessible to other cities and towns. The response clarified that sheriffs in each of the 10 counties would decide who to train, and the state police would also select one person per county. The training is limited to a mandated 8-hour course, emphasizing the need for education in animal cruelty cases.
HB153: Bixby Information Only00:10:01.600 - 9:09:12 AM; Bixby sought clarification on how the bill would work in practice, particularly concerning towns without Animal Control Officers (ACOs) and how they could seek assistance from sheriff's offices or state police. It was confirmed that this was the intent, with trained personnel serving as resources or possibly assisting in cases. Bixby further inquired about how local police departments would be informed of these resources, suggesting the need for an amendment to ensure this information is disseminated.
HB153: Barber Information Only00:11:38.120 - 9:10:49 AM; Barber asked if there was a veterinary component involved in the process, highlighting the expansive nature of the training across different types of animals. It was explained that existing laws allow for the removal of animals by law enforcement, and this bill adds a training component to those laws, noting that veterinarians cannot legally remove animals from properties.
HB153: William Wright, Sheriff of Belknap County and President of the New Hampshire Sheriff's Association Oppose00:13:27.279 - 9:12:38 AM; Sheriff William Wright testified in opposition to the bill, focusing on two main components: training and the requirement for sheriff's offices and state police to assist in animal cruelty cases. He noted that while training is important, there is no readily available advanced course through police standards and training. He also expressed concerns about the mandate requiring sheriff's offices to participate in investigations, citing potential staffing and resource challenges. Wright emphasized that current legislation already allows sheriffs to assist local departments and that the bill could create unfunded mandates and additional liabilities. He suggested that if the bill focused only on training, it might not face opposition from the Sheriff's Association.
HB153: Miner Information Only00:20:06.039 - 9:19:17 AM; Miner questioned if the bill would be time-consuming for the sheriff's office, noting that the frequency of calls for assistance is uncertain. Wright responded by referencing a significant case in Wolfeboro, suggesting that such cases could be very burdensome and that involvement in investigations could extend through the entire legal process, increasing potential liabilities.
HB153: Sheriff Wright Oppose00:21:15.279 - 9:20:26 AM; Sheriff Wright expressed concerns about the proposed bill, HB 153, arguing that it imposes a mandate on sheriff's offices to participate in animal cruelty investigations. He highlighted the ambiguity in the bill's language, particularly around the term 'assist', which he fears could lead to sheriff's departments taking over investigations from local law enforcement. He suggested that this could strain resources, especially in smaller departments that rely heavily on county support. Wright also mentioned existing laws and resources, like the Police Standards and Training Council, which already provide necessary training and guidelines. He emphasized that the current system allows for voluntary assistance and resource sharing among agencies, which he feels is more effective and less burdensome than a mandated role as proposed by the bill. He advocated for clearer language and more administrative guidance rather than legislative mandates.
HB153: Representative King Information Only00:26:22.480 - 9:25:33 AM; Representative King inquired about previous legislative mandates related to training, to which Sheriff Wright confirmed that mandates for training through the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council have been tenable. King's questions were aimed at understanding the feasibility and acceptance of such mandates within the law enforcement community.
HB153: Representative Haskins Information Only00:27:32.880 - 9:26:43 AM; Representative Haskins acknowledged Sheriff Wright's service and discussed the importance of having well-trained individuals in law enforcement respond to animal cruelty calls. She emphasized the value of passion and training in handling these cases effectively, suggesting that the bill might be beneficial if it encourages such training and support.
HB153: Representative Penza Information Only00:33:46.639 - 9:32:57 AM; Representative Penza questioned the interpretation of the bill's language, particularly the term 'able to assist', arguing that it does not impose a mandate as Sheriff Wright suggested. He highlighted that the law's interpretation would be based on its written content, not perception, and stressed the importance of precise language in legislation to avoid misinterpretation.
HB153: Representative Howard Information Only00:37:44.680 - 9:36:55 AM; Representative Howard asked if additional skills gained from specialized training would limit a sheriff's ability to prioritize resources. Sheriff Wright responded that while training is beneficial, the bill's ambiguity regarding the level of assistance required could tie up resources, especially in smaller departments.
HB153: Representative Freeman Information Only00:41:33.240 - 9:40:44 AM; Representative Freeman asked about the current procedure for handling suspected cases of animal cruelty and whether there are existing laws requiring a veterinarian's presence during investigations. Sheriff Wright confirmed that local law enforcement is primarily responsible for responding to such calls and was not aware of the specific law mentioned by Freeman regarding the need for a veterinarian.
HB153: Representative Bixby Information Only00:43:49.240 - 9:43:00 AM; Representative Bixby sought clarification on whether the responsibility for investigating animal cruelty falls directly on local law enforcement, to which Sheriff Wright confirmed that it does, emphasizing the local agencies' primary role in handling such cases.
HB153: Representative Scully Information Only00:48:41.520 - 9:47:52 AM; Representative Scully inquired about the language in the bill, specifically the term 'any potential investigation', and whether clarifying it to 'any helping with the initial investigation' would alleviate Sheriff Wright's concerns. Wright agreed that more clarifying language would help define roles and responsibilities more clearly.
HB153: State Police Representative Information Only00:50:00.280 - 9:49:11 AM; The speaker from the State Police provided neutral comments regarding the bill. They explained that the police academy currently offers training on approximately 45 investigative tasks, including animal abuse and neglect. The State Police assists local and county law enforcement with complex investigations. They are unaware of additional training offered by the Police Standards and Training Council (PSTC) but believe the director could provide clarification. They highlighted that animal cruelty investigations are conducted like any other criminal investigation, with specific training requirements mentioned for implicit bias, ethics, and de-escalation. They expressed uncertainty about mandating a trooper from every county to have additional training specifically for animal cruelty, citing the general investigative training received by troopers and the potential logistical issues with such a mandate.
HB153: Lucy Brown, Second VP for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, Vice President for Belknap County, and Young Farmer Board Member Support00:57:23.760 - 9:56:34 AM; Lucy Brown, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau and speaking as a farmer from New Hampton, supported the bill. She shared her experience with livestock and the importance of law enforcement having some background in livestock care to accurately assess animal cruelty cases. She emphasized the need for training to protect agriculturalists from false accusations and scare tactics, hoping that such training would enable small farms to continue thriving in the state.
HB153: Stacy Ober, New England Manager of Government Relations for the American Kennel Club Support01:00:34.680 - 9:59:45 AM; Stacy Ober from the American Kennel Club expressed support for HB 153, highlighting the importance of uniform training specific to animal husbandry and welfare. She noted the bill's potential to facilitate a consultation role for law enforcement in animal cruelty investigations. Ober also mentioned the American Kennel Club's Humane Fund, which supports domestic violence shelters with kennel space, and pointed out the link between animal cruelty and other crimes like domestic violence and drug offenses. She advocated for law enforcement to be trained as identifiers of animal cruelty, and to engage with responsible parties in the jurisdiction for investigations. She provided examples from Vermont and Massachusetts where similar training and special units have been implemented.
HB153: Kurt Aronberg, New Hampshire Director for the Humane Society of the United States Support01:06:03.880 - 10:05:14 AM; Kurt Aronberg, representing the Humane Society of the United States, supported the bill but acknowledged it needs amendments. He emphasized the need for an immediate response to animal cruelty calls by law enforcement trained to assess the situation. He mentioned serving on the governor's commission and the discussions about the need for a guaranteed response to animal cruelty. While acknowledging the importance of investigations, he stressed the urgency of immediate action to alleviate animal suffering. He suggested amendments could focus on the response aspect to address law enforcement's objections.
HB153: John Skippa, Director of New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Information Only01:09:34.799 - 10:08:45 AM; John Skippa, with 40 years of experience in law enforcement, including as the chief of the Stratham Police Department, provided neutral information regarding HB 153. He highlighted the operational and training issues related to the bill. Skippa noted that the bill, as written, could lead to operational ambiguity and suggested the formation of a Statewide task force to handle animal cruelty investigations more effectively. He emphasized the need for comprehensive training for law enforcement officers to handle complex animal cruelty cases, pointing out that current training at the police academy is cursory. He suggested that expanding training to a week-long course could be beneficial and mentioned the financial implications of developing and implementing such training. Skippa also discussed the possibility of incorporating animal cruelty training into annual inservice training requirements for police officers, and he responded to committee questions about the feasibility and funding of these training initiatives.
HB153: Nick Gerana, Representative of Cheshire District 15 (Chesterfield, Hinsdale, Keene Wards 1, 3-5, Surry, Walpole, Westmoreland) Support01:27:46.520 - 10:26:57 AM; Representative Nick Gerana supports HB153, which aims to revise the decision-making process for siting solid waste facilities by introducing a net public benefit analysis. He argues that current statutes define public benefit too narrowly and do not adequately weigh potential harms against benefits, similar to how individuals make personal decisions. HB153 requires applicants to hire an independent third party to assess both the potential benefits and harms of a proposed facility, ensuring that the evaluation of each project is based solely on its own merits, without combining benefits from other projects. Furthermore, the bill seeks to redefine 'capacity need' to require a demonstration of a projected capacity shortfall in the state for at least half the permitted period of the facility. Gerana highlights the long-standing use of environmental impact statements at the federal and state levels, suggesting that New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services (DES) can leverage existing methodologies to implement the net public benefit analysis. He stresses the importance of an independent assessment to provide communities with comprehensive information about proposed projects, noting the financial capability of major solid waste companies to fund such studies. He also addresses potential concerns about the fairness of the bill to businesses, emphasizing the minimal cost of the analysis compared to the profits made by these companies.
HB215: Representative Penza Information Only01:39:06.840 - 10:38:17 AM; Representative Penza seeks clarification on whether new rules would be necessary if the bill passes, specifically for the Department of Environmental Services (DES) to evaluate projects. The response confirms that DES would indeed need to create new rules to govern the process, but the bill does not dictate specific methodologies, allowing DES to use its judgment.
HB215: Representative Information Only01:39:53.639 - 10:39:04 AM; The speaker inquires about the influence of a 2023 state supreme court decision on the bill's creation, particularly in defining 'need'. The response affirms that the bill responds to the court's finding that the statute was vague, aiming to clarify the definition of 'need' in the context of landfill capacity.
HB215: Representative Gruber Information Only01:40:59.400 - 10:40:10 AM; Representative Gruber seeks clarification on whether the 'need' defined in the bill pertains to New Hampshire or neighboring states. It is confirmed that the statute requires the need to be based on New Hampshire's solid waste needs, not regional needs, addressing concerns about becoming a magnet for regional waste due to lax regulations.
HB215: Mike Whimet, Director of Waste Management Division Information Only01:43:19.880 - 10:42:30 AM; Mike Whimet, from the DES, testifies about HB215, stating that the agency does not take a position on the bill. He explains that current law does not direct DES to consider all potential harms or benefits associated with landfills. He mentions that the bill would alter the criteria for public benefit and potentially constrain permitting. Whimet also discusses the potential for a two-step process for landfill applications, suggesting that broader community impacts should be considered in the initial stage. He expresses that DES lacks the expertise to evaluate certain broader concerns and suggests involving additional experts in this process.
HB215: Representative Haskins Information Only01:47:27.639 - 10:46:38 AM; Representative Haskins questions the DES's previous stance against a two-step process for landfill applications. Whimet responds that the concept is now considered worthy of study, though no specific model has been determined yet.
HB215: Representative Gruber Information Only01:48:16.000 - 10:47:27 AM; Representative Gruber expresses confusion and frustration about the DES's current support for studying a two-step process, which they had previously opposed strongly. Whimet clarifies that his testimony is informed by recent discussions with the bill's sponsor and reaffirms the need to study the concept.
HB215: Representative Gruber Information Only01:49:47.880 - 10:48:58 AM; Representative Gruber questions whether the proposed process in HB215 aligns with DES's mission and their capacity to implement it. Whimet confirms that broader considerations are worth exploring and that DES may need external expertise to evaluate some of these issues.
HB215: Representative Scully Information Only01:50:42.079 - 10:49:53 AM; Representative Scully inquires about the DES's ability to evaluate broader impacts mentioned in the bill, such as economic and use issues. Whimet explains that DES's staff consists of engineers and scientists focused on environmental impacts, not these broader concerns, suggesting the need for external experts.
HB215: Unknown Information Only01:52:06.000 - 10:51:17 AM; The speaker raised concerns about a part of the bill that mentions the inclusion of emissions from the transport of solid waste to and from a proposed facility. They questioned the feasibility of conducting such a study due to the unpredictability of who would be transporting the waste and the types of vehicles used. The response was that such studies are common and involve making reasonable assumptions based on the proposed activity's location, type of waste, and likely sources of the waste. The estimates would be professional but still estimates, and the Department of Environmental Services (DES) has some expertise in this area, particularly regarding climate change and transportation impacts.
HB215: Unknown Information Only01:54:27.239 - 10:53:38 AM; The speaker suggested that given DES's lack of expertise in transportation, traffic, and economic concerns, these aspects of the study could be handled by other state departments that specialize in those areas. The response was that the bill does not specify how to measure the various impacts against each other, and it might be beneficial to include experts from departments like Transportation or the Bureau of Economic Affairs in the study group. The bill aims to evaluate whether there is a net public benefit from siting a facility, which requires a nuanced and possibly subjective analysis.
HB215: Unknown Support01:56:49.440 - 10:56:00 AM; The speaker supported the idea of forming a study committee to address the issues raised in the bill. They highlighted the importance of having the right experts at the table to evaluate the independent third-party analysis and make a reasoned decision. The speaker emphasized that the decision to move forward with a project would hinge on the expertise and composition of the evaluation group.
HB215: Representative Haskins Support01:57:07.599 - 10:56:18 AM; Representative Haskins expressed urgency in moving forward with the bill rather than sending it to a study committee. They argued that the bill aims to examine the broader impacts of such projects on communities and bodies of water, which is crucial. They felt confident that an independent third party could be contracted to conduct the required analysis, although concerns were raised about the potential bias of such parties hired by the applicant.
HB240: Representative Tom Manion Support03:04:59.399 - 12:04:10 PM; Representative Tom Manion introduced HB240, which aims to remove the penalty of forfeiture for non-payment of dog licenses. He clarified that the bill does not affect the requirement for licenses, vaccine proof, or court fines for non-compliance. It addresses a constituent's concern about the potential seizure of their dog due to non-payment of a $25 late fee, which escalated to a warrant for seizure. Manion emphasized the unnecessary severity of the current law and the financial burden it places on pet owners who cannot afford the fees.
HB240: Representative King Information Only03:07:00.720 - 12:06:11 PM; Representative King sought clarification on the scenario where a dog receives a vaccine but the owner fails to pay the license fee. Manion explained that a warning for a late fee is issued, and if not paid, it could lead to police action to seize the dog. King raised concerns about potential abuse of the system if the penalty of seizure were removed, to which Manion responded that existing fines and court penalties should be sufficient deterrents.
HB240: Representative Freeman Support03:08:34.840 - 12:07:45 PM; Representative Freeman supported HB240, sharing a similar personal experience with a dog unable to receive a rabies vaccine. They confirmed that the bill does not eliminate rabies vaccinations or reporting requirements but focuses on removing the seizure penalty. Freeman highlighted the potential harsh outcomes for dogs seized due to non-payment, including the possibility of ending up in kill shelters, emphasizing the need for the bill.
HB240: Ktoa Information Only03:10:06.800 - 12:09:17 PM; Ktoa discussed a specific case involving a dog that had an allergic reaction to a rabies vaccine. The dog's owner was in the process of obtaining an exemption from the state veterinarian, but due to a timing issue, the situation escalated to the Board of Selectmen. Ktoa highlighted the issue as a timing problem rather than negligence, and mentioned the dog's age and behavior, emphasizing it was an elderly dog that did not leave the property.
HB240: Unnamed Speaker Oppose03:11:13.160 - 12:10:24 PM; The speaker expressed concern about eliminating all provisions in the RSA related to dog licensing, particularly regarding public health risks posed by rabies. They questioned the removal of penalties for non-compliance with rabies vaccinations and licensing, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public safety through these measures.
HB240: Followup Speaker Information Only03:12:29.279 - 12:11:40 PM; The followup speaker clarified that the proposed changes do not affect the sections related to rabies vaccination or the financial penalties for non-compliance. They specifically mentioned that the amendment only addresses the sections that deal with the physical seizure of dogs for non-payment of registration fees, and not other aspects like rabies control or nuisance animals.
HB240: Bixby Information Only03:14:06.000 - 12:13:17 PM; Bixby suggested the possibility of an amendment to add an exception procedure for dog seizure, particularly in cases with extenuating circumstances like timing issues. They noted that the law seemed to be used as a scare tactic rather than being enforced, and suggested making the requirements for dog seizure more stringent, such as requiring repeated negligence.
HB240: Howard Information Only03:17:17.520 - 12:16:28 PM; Howard proposed strengthening the section that sends non-compliance cases to court, allowing the court to assess situations like elderly dogs or repeat offenders. They suggested this would be a better approach than the current law, which involves the Board of Selectmen.
HB240: Tina Guilford, Town Clerk of Derry Information Only03:18:14.840 - 12:17:25 PM; Tina Guilford explained that in Derry, they license around 7,000 dogs annually and do not seize dogs for non-compliance. She highlighted their efforts to remind owners and assist with licensing and rabies vaccinations. Guilford supported removing the provision for taking possession of dogs but emphasized the importance of the warrant process for starting court proceedings and maintaining a standardized process across towns.
HB240: Freeman Information Only03:20:58.199 - 12:20:09 PM; Freeman discussed the lack of a statewide rabies vaccine registry in New Hampshire. He mentioned that while towns receive rabies certificates, and law enforcement and animal control have access to information about dogs, there is no centralized system for tracking rabies vaccinations across the state.
HB240: Representative Ktoa Information Only03:21:41.800 - 12:20:52 PM; Representative Ktoa inquired about the public health aspect of rabies and the potential need for an educational component when sending out dog license notices. They expressed concern that people might not fully understand the risks associated with rabies and suggested that highlighting the liability of an unvaccinated dog could be more effective than just a fine.
HB240: Angela Ferrari, Dog Owners of the Granite State Oppose03:22:47.359 - 12:21:58 PM; Angela Ferrari, representing Dog Owners of the Granite State, opposed HB240. She highlighted the importance of the current dog licensing system in ensuring that dogs receive rabies vaccinations, which are crucial for public health. She expressed concerns that removing the penalties associated with non-compliance could decrease vaccination rates. Ferrari also mentioned the additional benefit of pet owners taking their dogs for annual check-ups, which helps in monitoring other important vaccinations like parvo and distemper. She stressed the importance of responsible pet ownership and the unpredictability of rabies exposure.
HB240: Dr. Lisa Boer, New Hampshire Licensed Veterinarian Oppose03:27:50.000 - 12:27:01 PM; Dr. Lisa Boer strongly opposed HB240, emphasizing the critical role of dog rabies vaccinations in public health. She detailed the fatality rate of rabies and the effectiveness of the vaccine, highlighting the zoonotic nature of the disease. Boer shared her personal experience with a dog that has an exemption due to an autoimmune disorder and explained the process for obtaining such exemptions. She argued that without strict vaccination enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, there is a risk of a public health crisis. Boer also discussed the financial and emotional burden on victims of bites from unvaccinated animals and the necessity of penalties to ensure compliance with vaccination laws, comparing it to other public safety regulations like DUI laws.
HB240: Dr. Lisa Boer, New Hampshire Licensed Veterinarian Information Only03:27:50.000 - 12:27:01 PM; Dr. Lisa Boer discussed the process of obtaining an exemption for dog licensing due to inability to vaccinate against rabies. She explained that the exemption required certification from a board-certified specialist in New Hampshire, which is more stringent than in other states where a general vet's note might suffice. She described her own experience with her service dog, which is no longer a service dog due to its condition, requiring it to be muzzled when outside. She also responded to a question about potential amendments to the law that could give towns more discretion regarding civil forfeiture warnings, expressing openness to such amendments but raised concerns about the duration and enforcement of exemptions.
HB240: Unnamed Speaker from Brentwood Information Only03:32:37.640 - 12:31:48 PM; The speaker from Brentwood provided details on the process of obtaining a dog license after securing an exemption. They noted that after obtaining a waiver from a specialist, it was submitted to their town, Brentwood, to get the dog licensed. The dog must be muzzled when leaving the property, which is challenging for the speaker, especially since the dog was previously a service dog.
HB240: Dr. Lisa Boer, New Hampshire Licensed Veterinarian Information Only03:34:11.680 - 12:33:22 PM; Dr. Boer continued to discuss the challenges of obtaining exemptions for dogs unable to be vaccinated for rabies. She highlighted the professional judgment involved in safely vaccinating dogs with previous reactions and the necessity of exemptions when no safe vaccination is possible. She suggested that a treating veterinarian could forward records to a specialist for review without the need for a physical visit.
HB240: Dr. Lisa Boer, New Hampshire Licensed Veterinarian Information Only03:34:59.399 - 12:34:10 PM; Dr. Boer responded to a query about finding specialists for rabies exemptions, stating that there are plenty of board-certified internal medicine specialists in New Hampshire. She explained that as a general practice vet, she would coordinate with these specialists for her clients seeking exemptions.
HB240: Dr. Lisa Boer, New Hampshire Licensed Veterinarian Information Only03:35:45.479 - 12:34:56 PM; Dr. Boer provided information on the cost of obtaining a letter of exemption from a specialist, estimating it to be around $200. She also mentioned that while there isn't a specific list on the Department of Agriculture's website, one could easily find such specialists online.
HB240: Stacy Ober, American Kennel Club Oppose03:37:18.880 - 12:36:29 PM; Stacy Ober from the American Kennel Club expressed opposition to House Bill 240, emphasizing the fatal threat of rabies and the importance of vaccination. She cited the CDC's ban on importing dogs from certain countries due to rabies risks and the issue of fraudulent health certificates. Ober suggested that the bill should clearly state the exemption process and opposed removing the civil forfeiture aspect, arguing it's necessary to enforce rabies vaccinations due to the public health risks.
HB201: Representative Bordes Support03:41:27.600 - 12:40:38 PM; Representative Bordes introduced House Bill 21, which seeks to prohibit the declawing of cats, comparing it to amputation at the middle knuckle. He emphasized the cruelty and inhumane nature of the procedure, often done for convenience like preventing furniture damage. He noted exceptions for medical reasons and mentioned support from many veterinarians, including those who refuse to perform the procedure. Bordes clarified that the bill imposes a civil penalty, not a criminal one, and he is open to discussing potential amendments.
HB201: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only03:43:01.359 - 12:42:12 PM; The committee member asked Representative Bordes to clarify whether the penalty in HB201 is civil or criminal, to which Bordes confirmed it is a civil penalty. The member also inquired if veterinarians support the bill to have a legal basis to refuse the procedure, which Bordes confirmed.
HB201: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only03:44:07.040 - 12:43:18 PM; The committee member asked about the statistics on declawing procedures in New Hampshire, to which Representative Bordes responded that the exact numbers are unavailable, but the procedure is still being performed in the state.
HB201: Representative Haskins Information Only03:44:38.680 - 12:43:49 PM; Representative Haskins asked if Representative Bordes would be open to an amendment allowing declawing for individuals with medical conditions that could be exacerbated by a cat with claws. Bordes expressed openness but wanted to consult with veterinarians and doctors, noting that declawed cats may resort to biting, which can be more harmful than scratching.
HB201: Representative Borders Information Only03:45:36.319 - 12:44:47 PM; Representative Borders engaged in a discussion regarding an amendment to the bill that would remove civil penalties and make the act of declawing cats illegal without penalties. They expressed concerns about the enforcement of such a law and its effectiveness if no penalties are imposed. They also discussed the potential for the law to give veterinarians an excuse to refuse the procedure, although they questioned the enforcement mechanism for violations.
HB201: Representative Scully Information Only03:46:38.840 - 12:45:49 PM; Representative Scully asked for clarification on who the bill's prohibition on declawing applies to, specifically questioning whether it applies to the cat owner, the veterinarian performing the procedure, or both. They also expressed concern about the liability of individuals who adopt declawed cats and bring them to a vet for unrelated services, and whether they could be reported for possessing a declawed cat. They confirmed with the bill sponsor that the legislation bans the act of declawing, not the possession of declawed cats.
HB201: Representative Miner Information Only03:48:11.680 - 12:47:22 PM; Representative Miner discussed their conversations with veterinarians from their community, noting that the declawing procedure is not widespread. They mentioned a veterinarian who has performed the procedure only twice in 40 years of practice. They questioned the lack of data on declawing in the state and suggested the need for legislation requiring veterinarians to report such procedures to gather more accurate statistics.
HB201: Representative Penza Information Only03:49:44.479 - 12:48:55 PM; Representative Penza raised concerns about the lack of data on cat declawing and questioned the need for the legislation without solid numbers to support it. They suggested amending the bill to require veterinarians to report declawing procedures, thus providing data to assess the necessity of the legislation. They also mentioned learning about a newer, less invasive declawing method and questioned whether the bill should cover such procedures.
HB201: Representative Bixby Information Only03:51:16.439 - 12:50:27 PM; Representative Bixby read information from a committee researcher about the frequency of declawing in New Hampshire. They mentioned a survey conducted by the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association in 2020, where 86 out of 146 clinics offered declawing and other procedures. They also referenced a 2025 article about a veterinarian who found 16 declaw procedures at a practice before banning it in 2018.
HB201: Representative King Information Only03:53:12.239 - 12:52:23 PM; Representative King inquired about the civil liability of individuals who take their cats out of state for declawing. The response indicated that such action would be against New Hampshire law, though enforcement would be challenging. They also mentioned that similar laws are being enacted in other municipalities, including Massachusetts.
HB201: Representative Wheeler Information Only03:55:35.760 - 12:54:46 PM; Representative Wheeler discussed the impact of declawing on a cat's balance and ability to use the litter box. They noted that declawed cats may struggle with these functions and are at a disadvantage if they escape outdoors, as they cannot climb or defend themselves effectively.
HB201: Dr. Lisa Boer Oppose03:57:18.159 - 12:56:29 PM; Dr. Lisa Boer, a New Hampshire veterinarian with 23 years of experience and a court-qualified expert in animal welfare, strongly opposed the bill. She argued that it removes her autonomy to make medical decisions for her patients and diminishes the collaborative relationship between pet owners and veterinarians. Dr. Boer emphasized that veterinarians take an oath to protect animal welfare and that the bill questions their professional judgment. She questioned the enforcement of the bill and suggested that it is unnecessary as declawing is not a significant issue in the state. She also challenged the reported statistics on declawing and urged the committee not to infringe upon veterinarians' rights to make ethical medical decisions.
HB201: Representative German Information Only04:01:11.359 - 1:00:22 PM; Representative German asked Dr. Boer about the exemptions in the bill for medical conditions and how the bill might interfere with a veterinarian's ability to discuss the procedure with clients. Dr. Boer responded that the bill prevents potential clients from even starting a discussion about declawing, as they might seek services elsewhere. She expressed concerns about legislative overreach into veterinary practice and questioned the need for the bill, suggesting a survey to gather accurate data on declawing in the state.
HB201: Representative Barber Information Only04:06:58.000 - 1:06:09 PM; Representative Barber inquired about informed consent and whether cat owners proceed with declawing after being educated about the procedure. Dr. Boer responded that properly educated owners would rarely elect to declaw their cats. Barber also asked about reporting requirements for veterinary procedures and whether an anonymous survey on declawing would be feasible. Dr. Boer confirmed that such a survey could be conducted if properly framed.
HB201: Kurt Aronburg Support04:09:17.159 - 1:08:28 PM; Kurt Aronburg, the New Hampshire director for the Humane Society of the United States, supported the bill, emphasizing that declawing is a cruel and unnecessary procedure. He argued that the bill allows veterinarians to perform declawing only when medically necessary and cited statistics showing that 86 out of 146 veterinary clinics in New Hampshire offered declawing in 2020. Aronburg stressed the inhumane nature of the procedure and its impact on cats' natural behaviors and health, urging the committee to vote in favor of the bill.
HB201: Dr. Jane Baroy, New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association and American Veterinary Medical Association Oppose04:18:01.520 - 1:17:12 PM; Dr. Jane Baroy, representing the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association, strongly opposes HB201. She argues that the bill would undermine the professional judgment of veterinarians and disrupt the essential veterinary-patient-client relationship. She emphasizes the importance of veterinarians retaining the authority to make clinical recommendations based on professional judgment. Baroy notes that a recent survey of their members showed that 83% do not offer declawing at all, and the remaining only do so as a last resort. She criticizes the use of combined survey data from 2020 as inappropriate for this context and stresses the need for her members to retain autonomy in their professional decisions.
HB201: Representative German Information Only04:20:28.359 - 1:19:39 PM; Representative German asks Dr. Baroy if it is inhumane to remove a cat's claws for purely cosmetic reasons or for the convenience of the owner. Dr. Baroy responds by questioning the definition of inhumane in relation to medical procedures on animals, suggesting that many procedures could be considered inhumane by that definition, including neutering. She clarifies that declawing under proper anesthesia is not inhumane, but doing it in inappropriate settings like a kitchen would be.
HB201: Follow-up Questioner Information Only04:21:16.520 - 1:20:27 PM; The follow-up questioner challenges Dr. Baroy's comparison of declawing to neutering, pointing out the numerous health benefits of neutering, such as preventing mass reproduction. Dr. Baroy counters by stating that reproduction is a natural behavior, similar to scratching in cats, and that controlling reproduction benefits the owner rather than the animal's health.
HB201: Representative Ktoa Information Only04:23:35.279 - 1:22:46 PM; Representative Ktoa questions whether spaying or neutering an animal can decrease its lifespan. Dr. Baroy expresses uncertainty about the data, noting that much of the research on this topic is retrospective and may not fully account for other variables in an animal's life.
HB201: Representative Penza Information Only04:24:50.479 - 1:24:01 PM; Representative Penza inquires whether Dr. Baroy represents every veterinarian in the state. Dr. Baroy clarifies that she represents members of the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association, which had over 350 members at the end of the last fiscal year. She notes the difficulty in determining the exact number of practicing veterinarians in New Hampshire due to its border state status and the licensing of veterinarians in multiple states.
HB201: Representative Haskins Information Only04:26:32.119 - 1:25:43 PM; Representative Haskins asks about the results of a 2020 survey conducted by the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association regarding the legality of declawing. Dr. Baroy confirms she conducted the survey and notes that while the results were close, with 51% against and 47% for making declawing illegal, she must follow the majority opinion of her membership.
HB201: Unidentified Speaker, possibly from a veterinary association Information Only04:27:28.000 - 1:26:39 PM; The speaker discussed the challenges of gathering accurate data about the frequency of cat declawing procedures in New Hampshire. They expressed willingness to collaborate with the state to collect better data, highlighting the difficulty in obtaining representative samples through surveys among their members. The speaker mentioned that the veterinary profession evolves rapidly, making old data obsolete and stressed the importance of having updated information before legislative discussions. They also offered to help create a bill if needed and mentioned having written testimony from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
HB201: Robert Cook, Rochester Support04:30:59.199 - 1:30:10 PM; Robert Cook, a resident of Rochester and a licensed Forester in New Hampshire, spoke in support of the bill. He compared neutering to declawing, noting that while neutering typically has no lasting effects, declawing leads to significant and harmful long-term effects. As a volunteer at animal shelters and a member of the New Hampshire disaster animal response team, he has witnessed the consequences of declawing firsthand. He argued that declawing is essentially an amputation and causes behavioral problems, leading to higher surrender rates at shelters. He urged legislators to consider the outcomes at shelters as a source of data on the procedure's impact and to pass the bill.
HB201: Christina Snider, Chester Support04:34:29.160 - 1:33:40 PM; Christina Snider, from Chester, shared her support for the bill, recounting her personal experience with a declawed cat she adopted. She highlighted the suffering the cat endured due to the procedure, which she described as mutilation and animal cruelty. She argued that declawing is akin to amputating fingers and causes long-term suffering. Snider criticized the repetitive nature of discussing this bill without action and urged the committee to pass legislation to stop declawing, emphasizing the moral imperative to end this practice.
HB201: Michelle Franzen Conroy, Concord Support04:39:59.080 - 1:39:10 PM; Michelle Franzen Conroy, a lifelong resident of Concord, spoke in support of the bill. She shared her experiences working at an animal hospital in Concord in the early 1990s, where she witnessed the immediate aftermath of declawing surgeries. She described the distress and pain of the cats post-surgery, including their attempts to remove bandages and the resulting blood and re-bandaging. Conroy emphasized the cruelty of the procedure and urged the committee to pass the bill.
HB201: Tony McLane, New Hampshire Support04:42:58.400 - 1:42:09 PM; Tony McLane, a resident of New Hampshire and a former wildlife biologist and animal shelter director, spoke in support of the bill. He described declawing as a cruel and inhumane practice, sharing his observations of its impact on both wild and domestic cats. He highlighted the severe pain and behavioral issues caused by declawing, leading to high return rates of cats to shelters. McLane stressed the need for a ban on declawing, except in medically necessary cases, and offered to provide data from his shelter experience to support the bill.
HB201: Lauren Martin, Amherst, New Hampshire Support04:50:38.958 - 1:49:49 PM; Lauren Martin, a resident of Amherst, New Hampshire, supports HB201, which prohibits cat declawing. She has lifelong experience with cats and is a strong advocate for animal welfare, believing declawing to be inhumane. Martin argues that declawing is often sought due to scratching, but there are alternatives like nail caps, providing more scratching surfaces, and regular claw trimming. She notes that many veterinary hospitals and several countries and states, including recent bans in Massachusetts, have outlawed the practice. She expresses concern that people from Massachusetts may come to New Hampshire for declawing if it remains legal here, urging the committee to support HB201.
HB201: Joan O'Brien, New Hampshire Animal Rights League Support04:52:11.520 - 1:51:22 PM; Joan O'Brien from the New Hampshire Animal Rights League supports HB201. She highlights the organization's long history of animal protection, formed in 1977. O'Brien argues that banning declawing would prevent cat disfigurement and potentially save the lives of veterinarians, who face high suicide rates due to the emotional toll of their work and ethical conflicts with performing declawing. She mentions anecdotal evidence and a 2024 Wall Street Journal article indicating the prevalence of declawing, and a 2023 survey showing some New Hampshire veterinarians still perform the procedure. O'Brien argues against waiting for the practice to fall out of favor, stressing the need for a law to send a strong societal message against declawing.
HB201: Angela Ferrari, Dog Owners of the Granite State Oppose04:57:37.120 - 1:56:48 PM; Angela Ferrari, representing Dog Owners of the Granite State, opposes HB201. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining veterinary autonomy and the vet-patient relationship. Ferrari argues that decisions about declawing should be made based on recent data, not outdated information, and notes that the New Hampshire VMA reports only 20% or less of veterinarians perform these procedures. She mentions a newer procedure, onic ectomy, which would still be banned under the bill, and cites the American Veterinary Medical Association's stance that there is no scientific evidence linking declawing to behavioral abnormalities. Ferrari also questions the source of declawed cats in shelters, suggesting they are imported from states where the procedure is more common.
HB201: Angela Ferrari, Dog Owners of the Granite State Oppose05:03:02.200 - 2:02:13 PM; Ferrari continues her opposition to HB201, sharing a personal anecdote about a cat named Biffy declawed in the '90s who lived a normal, happy life. She argues that positive experiences with declawing are underrepresented in the hearing. Ferrari also expresses concern that HB201 could set a precedent for banning other procedures, impacting veterinary autonomy and the vet-patient relationship.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:16:39.440 - 2:15:50 PM; The speaker discusses the potential for conducting a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in collaboration with organized experts and the department to assess the environmental impact of projects. They emphasize the need for more data on the harms of projects and suggest that the department is capable of performing such analyses. They clarify that the bill does not envision a traditional cost-benefit analysis but rather a broader analysis of benefits and potential harms to determine the suitability of a facility.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:19:05.440 - 2:18:16 PM; The speaker responds to questions about the possibility of hiring an independent contractor through an RFP to assess parts of the project where the department might lack expertise. They suggest that while their testimony focused on a separate decision-making body, the idea of hiring outside experts is feasible and has precedent within the agency's processes. They confirm that costs for such services can be billed to the applicant if authorized by statute.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:20:44.558 - 2:19:55 PM; The speaker discusses the approach taken by 16 other states, possibly related to the NEPA process, and how the agency has previously surveyed other states' regulatory approaches. They clarify their understanding of the sponsor's testimony, which they believe was referring to a broader environmental policy rather than specific landfill decisions.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:22:17.638 - 2:21:28 PM; The speaker addresses the legal authority of the department to consider harms and adverse impacts during the permitting process. They explain that the current statute limits the areas the agency can evaluate, and the proposed bill might allow for consideration of additional harms not currently permitted. They discuss potential areas like noise, odor, traffic, and emissions that could be added to the permitting process if the bill passes.
HB215: Amy Manzelli, North Country Alliance for Balance Change Support05:25:09.120 - 2:24:20 PM; Amy Manzelli testifies in support of HB2155, emphasizing the need to refine the language without resorting to a study committee. She explains that the bill aims to improve RSA 149-M by clarifying that only the facility applied for should be considered for net public benefit analysis. She cites examples from New Hampshire law, such as zoning boards of adjustment and the site evaluation committee for energy facilities, to argue that the bill's approach is well-established. Manzelli also addresses the capacity need, suggesting a middle ground between polar opposite positions in a recent court decision, and supports a requirement that the facility demonstrates a need for half its operational time.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:35:08.600 - 2:34:19 PM; The speaker asks Amy Manzelli about the representation of North Country Alliance for Balance Change and her law firm, BCM Environmental and Land Law PLLC. Manzelli clarifies that she is the attorney for the Alliance, which is a client of her law firm, and defers to another member of the organization for a detailed explanation of its mission.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:36:18.798 - 2:35:29 PM; The speaker seeks clarification on whether meeting the criteria for benefits automatically grants a permit or just advances the application. Manzelli explains that it's not automatic and refers to the process for energy facility siting under RSA 162-H, which involves demonstrating no unreasonable adverse effects to obtain a permit. She emphasizes the complexity and qualitative nature of the process.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:38:11.440 - 2:37:22 PM; The speaker discusses the current process of permit applications for waste management facilities. They clarify that these applications focus on compliance with federal law rather than a detailed analysis of public benefit. The speaker addresses the constraints under which the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services operates, particularly in relation to air pollution and other environmental considerations. They mention that the bill does not intend to duplicate the work of the Air Resources Division but rather to ensure that solid waste facilities meet certain criteria like capacity needs, compliance with the state's solid waste management plan, and adherence to the waste hierarchy. The speaker also humorously mentions considerations like seagulls and noise, which are not within the department's purview under current law.
HB215: Henry Veu, Waste Management Oppose05:41:56.520 - 2:41:07 PM; Henry Veu, representing Waste Management and the Turnkey landfill in Rochester, speaks about the impact of HB215 on existing landfills. He provides background on the landfill's operations since 1983, its capacity until 2034, and potential for expansion. Veu questions the utility of conducting new assessments on existing facilities like Turnkey, as the conditions mentioned in the bill (noise, odor, traffic, pollution) are already known and have been managed for 40 years. He argues that these assessments might not add value for facilities looking to extend their life through expansion. Veu also addresses questions regarding public access to past public benefit assessments and the relevance of the new conditions proposed in the bill to existing facilities.
HB215: Unknown Information Only05:47:55.638 - 2:47:06 PM; The speaker, likely a committee member, discusses the need for reassessment of existing facilities in light of changing statutes over time. They question whether it is necessary for facilities like Turnkey to undergo new analyses if they are expanding, given that the impacts outlined in the bill are already known and have been managed for decades. The speaker suggests that the new conditions proposed in the bill might not be applicable to existing facilities and that the utility of such assessments for facilities like Turnkey could be limited.
HB215: Unknown, Representative from Rochester Information Only05:50:42.558 - 2:49:53 PM; The speaker, a representative from Rochester, acknowledges familiarity with the Turnkey landfill and agrees with the sentiment that reassessments might not be necessary for existing facilities due to already known impacts. They ask about the applicability of the bill's criteria to new landfills, where such impacts would need to be estimated. The speaker confirms understanding that for facilities like Turnkey, extending operations would not significantly alter known impacts, and existing company practices would continue to manage these impacts.
HB215: Unknown, Representative from Rochester Information Only05:50:42.558 - 2:49:53 PM; The speaker discussed the nature of landfill expansions, mentioning that the impacts such as increased truck traffic and odor are already known due to the landfill's 40-year history and six expansions. They explained that the proposed expansion would replace a closed section, maintaining the status quo in terms of impact. They also mentioned that permit applications are done in phases or 'bite sizes', suggesting minimal change in the landfill's operation with the new expansion.
HB215: Unknown, Representative Information Only05:53:12.440 - 2:52:23 PM; The speaker raised questions about the expansion process and its timeline, expressing concern about maintaining capacity until 2034 and the need to start the permit process soon to avoid capacity issues. They also inquired about the preferred approach to expansions, whether existing facilities should be exempt or if a baseline of current data should be filed. The response indicated a preference for exemption but acknowledged that data on traffic and odor is already collected and submitted to the Department of Environmental Services (DES).
HB215: Penza from Rochester Information Only05:58:28.200 - 2:57:39 PM; Penza appreciated the communication from waste management and asked if, in case of an extension, the existing data could be made public without hiring expensive consultants. The response was affirmative, indicating that while the data exists and is available, it may require some effort to compile and access.
HB215: Unknown, Representative Information Only06:00:04.000 - 2:59:15 PM; The speaker inquired about the availability of the data mentioned to the public, confirming that while the data exists, it is not readily packaged in one place and would require effort to access. They also sought clarification on the process of landfill expansions and the potential need for an analysis, emphasizing the importance of weighing both benefits and harms. The discussion highlighted that the cost of such assessments would be borne by the applicant, not the communities.
HB215: Unknown, Representative Information Only06:00:40.080 - 2:59:51 PM; The speaker asked whether the landfill's expansion would replace a closed section and if an analysis should be conducted given the potential impacts on nearby residents. They discussed the importance of a net public benefit analysis and the financial responsibility for such assessments, which would fall on the applicant, not the communities.
HB215: Unknown, Representative Information Only06:03:48.760 - 3:02:59 PM; The speaker asked a direct question about whether the landfill's operation in the next 20 years would provide more public benefit than harm, to which a simple affirmative response was given.
HB215: Nancy Morrison from Whitefield and Mont Vernon Support06:04:41.120 - 3:03:52 PM; Nancy Morrison expressed support for HB 2115, emphasizing the need for legislative policy to address net public benefit, capacity need, and independent evaluation of landfill permits. She argued for a holistic approach to landfill permitting, considering both benefits and harms, and criticized the influence of the waste industry on state policy. Morrison highlighted the importance of the bill in achieving the state's waste reduction goals and ensuring responsible landfill capacity management.
HB215: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:12:09.160 - 3:11:20 PM; The speaker discusses the use of incentives or 'sweeteners' by landfill applicants, specifically mentioning Casella's proposal to build a materials recycling facility (MRF) in Southern New Hampshire as a condition for getting their landfill project approved in the North Country. They clarify that the MRF's construction is tied to the approval of the landfill in Dalton, New Hampshire.
HB215: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:13:15.080 - 3:12:26 PM; The speaker seeks clarification on whether the construction of the recycling plant in Southern New Hampshire is contingent on the approval of the landfill in Dalton. They express a hope that the recycling facility might be built regardless of the landfill's approval, citing Casella's long-standing center in Bethlehem, New Hampshire.
HB215: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:13:59.680 - 3:13:10 PM; The speaker confirms that the information about the recycling plant being tied to the landfill permit in Dalton is based on what they have read in newspapers and other documents over the past few years. They stress that the bill under discussion aims to ensure that landfill permits are evaluated independently of other incentives.
HB215: Unknown Speaker Information Only06:15:22.638 - 3:14:33 PM; The speaker, part of the NCBC, confirms that the linkage between the recycling center and the landfill is documented in Casella's application for the permit.
HB215: Michael Wright, Littleton Support06:16:33.680 - 3:15:44 PM; Michael Wright from Littleton strongly supports HB21515, which he describes as a common sense bill to modernize the landfill permit process. He argues that the bill requires applicants to provide a comprehensive report on the potential harms and benefits of their proposed projects, addressing gaps in current DES practices that focus mainly on economic benefits. He counters arguments that the bill duplicates processes or adds unnecessary costs, asserting that it ensures a balanced evaluation of both benefits and harms. Wright also dismisses claims that the bill introduces subjectivity or harms low-income families, emphasizing the importance of evaluating potential harms to prevent long-term environmental and public health costs. He concludes by urging the committee to support the bill for its role in safeguarding public health and the environment.
HB215: Unidentified Speaker Information Only06:21:31.400 - 3:20:42 PM; The speaker responded to a question from the chair, clarifying that the bill introduces objectivity and fairness into a currently subjective process. They mentioned having written testimony which they had not yet uploaded but promised to do so by the time they reached their car. They also offered to leave a copy of their testimony with the clerk, Representative King.
HB215: Unidentified Speaker Information Only06:22:16.600 - 3:21:27 PM; The speaker read a quote into the record from page 36 of a public benefit application for Casella, which stated that by permitting the GSL project, the Department of Environmental Services would be approving the creation of a new state-of-the-art materials recycling facility in Southern New Hampshire.
HB215: Unidentified Speaker Information Only06:23:04.958 - 3:22:15 PM; The speaker summarized the results of the blue sheet and online portal regarding the support and opposition for the bill. They noted six people supporting the bill and zero against it on the blue sheet, and 69 persons supporting and four opposing the bill on the online portal. The speaker then closed the hearing for HB215 and announced a motion to adjourn the session, mentioning future public hearings and work sessions.

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