Committee Summary for House Environment and Agriculture (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB566 00:05:50.479 - 9:04:16 AM	Public Hearing	requiring permit applications for new landfills to contain a detailed plan for leachate management.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
HB566 01:11:42.560 - 10:10:08 AM	Public Hearing	requiring permit applications for new landfills to contain a detailed plan for leachate management.	Germana, Nicholas(D)[F]2025
HB215 01:35:54.719 - 10:34:20 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 01:44:30.480 - 10:42:56 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to nonpayment of dog licensing fees.	Mannion, Tom(R)[A+]2025
HB201 01:46:49.119 - 10:45:15 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the removal of claws from cats.	Bordes, Mike(R)[C]2025
HB355 03:05:26.040 - 12:03:52 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the membership of the solid waste working group.	Ebel, Karen(D)[F]2025
HB355 03:22:33.840 - 12:20:59 PM	Executive Session	relative to the membership of the solid waste working group.	Ebel, Karen(D)[F]2025
HB179 03:25:33.479 - 12:23:59 PM	Public Hearing	relative to hazardous waste accident fees.	Proulx, Mark(R)[C+]2025
HR13 05:27:03.920 - 2:25:29 PM	Public Hearing	opposing the permitting of a landfill next to Forest Lake State Park in Dalton, New Hampshire.	Sullivan, Jared(D)[D]2025
Unclear 05:52:27.680 - 2:50:53 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB566: Representative Ger Support00:05:50.479 - 9:04:16 AM; Representative Ger introduced HB 566, emphasizing the need for detailed leachate management plans in new landfill permit applications due to recent issues highlighted in the New Hampshire Bulletin. They discussed the bipartisan nature of the bill and their consultations with the Department of Environmental Services (DES) and the Turnkey facility in Rochester. Representative Ger mentioned that they plan to propose amendments based on expert feedback, including changing the term 'permit for construction' to 'operating approval', and including expansions of landfills in the bill's scope. They also clarified that the bill does not restrict business innovation but requires plans for leachate management, transportation, and disposal throughout the facility's life, including post-closure. They responded to questions from the committee about the bill's implications and potential enforcement mechanisms by DES if plans are not followed.
HB566: Chair Information Only00:02:02.840 - 9:00:28 AM; The Chair welcomed everyone to the Environment and Agriculture Committee meeting and led the Pledge of Allegiance. They introduced HB 566 and reminded members to focus on receiving testimony without leading questions or arguments. The Chair also mentioned their need to leave for another bill hearing at 10:20 am, leaving the committee in the hands of the Vice Chair.
HB566: Representative Bixby Information Only00:04:19.279 - 9:02:45 AM; Representative Bixby emphasized the importance of efficiency in the hearing process, advising members not to repeat questions that have already been answered, in order to maximize the information gathered from witnesses.
HB566: Representative Miner Information Only00:17:41.960 - 9:16:07 AM; Representative Miner asked Representative Ger about the current status of leachate management information availability from different waste management companies, to which Representative Ger responded that DES already requires and oversees this information from all operators.
HB566: Representative King Information Only00:18:33.960 - 9:16:59 AM; Representative King raised concerns about the recourse available if the leachate management plans provided in permit applications are not followed, to which Representative Ger responded that DES has an ongoing relationship with operators for monitoring and enforcement, and can take action in cases of non-compliance.
HB566: Representative J Information Only00:20:12.320 - 9:18:38 AM; Representative J responded to a question about the potential stifling of innovation due to statutory parameters. They clarified that the bill does not aim to restrict innovation, as new contracts and technologies can be incorporated into plans submitted to DES (Department of Environmental Services). They worked closely with DES to ensure the language in the amendment complements existing rules without duplicating them, aiming to enhance the implementation of rules more effectively.
HB566: Grace from the Business and Industry Association Oppose00:22:40.080 - 9:21:06 AM; Grace expressed opposition to the bill as introduced, citing concerns that it might unnecessarily codify existing regulations into statute. They highlighted that DES already has the authority under existing rules (ENV 806) to manage leachate and enforce compliance, as evidenced by letters of deficiency issued to operators. Grace questioned the necessity of the bill, suggesting that the existing administrative rules allow for more flexibility and adaptability to new technologies and issues than a statutory approach. They also mentioned the potential for operators to alter contracts shortly after submitting plans, which could undermine the purpose of the bill. Grace indicated that their position might change upon reviewing the proposed amendment, but they currently see it as redundant and potentially limiting to DES's regulatory agility.
HB566: Representative Penza Support00:30:11.440 - 9:28:37 AM; Representative Penza argued in favor of the bill, suggesting it establishes a commitment to proactive leachate management plans rather than reactive measures after issues arise. They questioned the effectiveness of existing enforcement mechanisms, citing numerous violations mentioned in DES's letters of deficiency. Representative Penza also referenced current rules (ENV 806.53) that require multiple locations for leachate treatment, emphasizing that the bill sets necessary parameters without changing existing requirements.
HB566: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:31:16.919 - 9:29:42 AM; The speaker responded to Representative Penza's point about the effectiveness of existing enforcement, stating that simply rewriting existing rules into statute would not necessarily change how they are adhered to or enforced. They emphasized that the bill appears unnecessary given that the rules DES operates under are already effective and well-publicized.
HB566: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:33:20.200 - 9:31:46 AM; The speaker engaged in a discussion about the relative longevity and impact of state statutes versus agency rules, particularly in the context of environmental regulations. They highlighted that agency rules can be more adaptable to new technologies and situations without needing legislative intervention, suggesting that statutes might not be necessary for addressing every environmental issue. The conversation touched on whether statutes are more affirmative or impactful in long-term policy compared to agency rules.
HB566: Representative Wheeler Information Only00:34:06.399 - 9:32:32 AM; Representative Wheeler questioned whether state statutes provide more long-term protection than agency rules, suggesting that statutes might be more impactful in addressing significant environmental issues like leachate pollution. They sought clarity on when it would be prudent for the legislature to intervene with statutes versus relying on agency rules.
HB566: Representative Haskins Information Only00:35:59.880 - 9:34:25 AM; Representative Haskins inquired about the state's leachate problem and the roles of the legislature and agencies in addressing it. They discussed how the legislature sets general policy, while agencies create specific rules, like the 806 rules, to manage environmental issues.
HB566: Representative Howard Information Only00:36:45.720 - 9:35:11 AM; Representative Howard explored the differences between laws, rules, and plans in managing leachate, questioning how these elements fulfill the concept of control. They sought to understand the practical implications of these regulatory frameworks in addressing environmental concerns at specific sites.
HB566: Representative Miner Information Only00:39:55.800 - 9:38:21 AM; Representative Miner questioned whether additional statutes would burden the industry unnecessarily, suggesting that existing rules already cover necessary regulations. They argued that new statutes might clarify existing regulations but could also complicate compliance for businesses.
HB566: Tom Tower, Whitefield, North Country ABC Support00:40:44.040 - 9:39:10 AM; Tom Tower supported HB 566, emphasizing the urgency of addressing leachate issues. He cited a New Hampshire Bulletin article detailing a significant increase in leachate volume at the Bethlehem facility, which has led to regulatory non-compliance. Tower argued that HB 566 would close a regulatory gap by requiring detailed planning for the entire lifecycle of leachate management, including transportation and treatment, despite adding burdens on applicants.
HB566: Representative Bixby Information Only00:44:33.880 - 9:42:59 AM; Representative Bixby clarified that HB 566 would cover the entire lifecycle of the leachate process, not just the front end, as per Tom Tower's testimony. They sought confirmation on this aspect and discussed potential amendments to the bill.
HB566: Wayne Morrison, North Country ABC Support00:45:19.040 - 9:43:45 AM; Wayne Morrison expressed strong support for HB 566, highlighting the dangers of leachate and the inadequacy of current systems to manage it effectively. He noted that leachate, a toxic mixture, is often diluted into rivers, posing significant risks to health and the environment. Morrison stressed the need for legislative action to address the growing problem of leachate, especially given the increasing volume and potential for environmental contamination.
HB566: Penza, Bethlehem Information Only00:50:38.640 - 9:49:04 AM; Penza provided an overview of the leachate management process, explaining that leachate from landfills like NCES in Bethlehem is collected, stored, and then transported to wastewater treatment facilities such as those in Concord, Manchester, or Franklin. He highlighted the complexity and the circular nature of the process, where some materials are brought back to the landfill after treatment, and the effluent is released into the river. He noted the significant distances involved in transporting leachate, mentioning the challenges and capacity issues at municipal solid waste facilities. He emphasized the need for diligence in managing leachate due to its dangerous nature and the importance of reducing waste to minimize leachate generation.
HB566: John Swan, Save Forest Lake, Dalton Support00:53:33.559 - 9:51:59 AM; John Swan, founder of Save Forest Lake, expressed his support for the bill as introduced but with an amendment to remove existing facilities from exemptions. He criticized the amended version of the bill due to concerns over industry influence. Swan detailed his research on leachate management issues at the NCES landfill in Bethlehem and the proposed GSL landfill in Dalton, highlighting the lack of written agreements for leachate disposal as required by existing rules. He mentioned the toxicity of leachate leading to limitations by treatment facilities and the potential long-term capacity of GSL. Swan stressed the importance of enforcing current rules and the need for clear agreements on leachate management to protect New Hampshire's environment.
HB566: Mike Whimet, Director of Waste Management Division, New Hampshire DES Information Only01:02:37.720 - 10:01:03 AM; Mike Whimet from the New Hampshire DES provided information on the department's stance on the bill, stating they were not taking a position but had worked with the sponsor to address concerns. He explained that the amendment would clarify leachate management requirements and make them more explicit in statute, which could strengthen enforcement. Whimet discussed the department's approach to compliance assurance and enforcement, including the process for handling rule waivers and violations. He addressed questions about the handling of catastrophic events like the 2023 flash floods, explaining how leachate management plans are designed to cope with such events and the department's role in managing these situations.
HB566: Howard, Representative Information Only01:11:42.560 - 10:10:08 AM; Representative Howard inquired about the enforcement of violation letters sent out, specifically asking about the total monetary penalties issued. The response clarified that while there were numerous instances of violations, the exact number of letters sent might have been misunderstood. Enforcement action has been referred to the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and details about penalties could not be discussed as the matter is still in process.
HB566: Howard, Representative Information Only01:12:40.480 - 10:11:06 AM; Representative Howard asked if the current application for a permit adequately addresses leachate management. The response affirmed that under existing statutory language and administrative rules, a detailed leachate management plan is required in the operating plan before operating approval is granted.
HB566: Minor, Representative Information Only01:13:50.760 - 10:12:16 AM; Representative Minor raised concerns about plans in place to deal with a catastrophic failure that could impact the aquifer. The response detailed the robust monitoring systems in place around landfills, including the requirement for monitoring wells and enhanced monitoring and investigations in case of contaminant detection, followed by corrective action plans if needed.
HB566: Bigby, Representative Information Only01:15:22.600 - 10:13:48 AM; Representative Bigby asked if the bill, with potential amendments, could provide the department with tools for better leachate management plans. The response indicated that explicit statutory authority could be helpful to the department.
HB566: Penza, Representative Information Only01:16:16.520 - 10:14:42 AM; Representative Penza questioned the authority to impose fines, citing the example of the Bethlehem facility. The response clarified that while the department has authority to seek penalties, it works with the Department of Justice for civil and criminal sanctions. Historical penalties were mentioned, but specifics were not provided due to ongoing enforcement processes.
HB566: Scully, Representative Information Only01:17:46.840 - 10:16:12 AM; Representative Scully asked about the specifics in leachate management plans, particularly regarding anticipated volume and excess storage capacity. The response confirmed that plans include estimates and require contractual agreements with wastewater facilities to manage routine and increased leachate volumes.
HB566: Bigby, Representative Information Only01:20:06.080 - 10:18:32 AM; Representative Bigby inquired about the enforcement process and limitations on discussing referred cases to the Department of Justice. The response indicated confidentiality during ongoing enforcement actions to avoid jeopardizing potential litigation, with variable time scales for resolution.
HB566: Penza, Representative Information Only01:23:15.320 - 10:21:41 AM; Representative Penza requested a list of all violations for the Bethlehem landfill over the last two years, along with associated fines. The response affirmed that all documents issued to the permitee are public and available to the committee.
HB566: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:27:07.840 - 10:25:33 AM; The speaker introduced an amendment drafted by OS concerning HB566. The amendment addresses the inclusion of additional RSAs regarding training and specifies who can respond or assist upon request of local law enforcement agencies. The amendment clarifies that it is upon the request of local law enforcement, addressing concerns raised during the hearing about the involvement of state police in animal-related cases.
HB566: Representative K Support01:28:24.320 - 10:26:50 AM; Representative K supported the amendment to HB566, stating it addresses concerns about state police involvement in animal cases. They shared a personal anecdote about a situation involving animal abuse where local law enforcement lacked knowledge and resources, emphasizing the need for clarity in law enforcement roles and better education on animal-related statutes. They suggested that the bill might benefit from further study in a subcommittee to refine its approach using existing task force structures.
HB566: Representative Bixby Support01:31:35.320 - 10:30:01 AM; Representative Bixby agreed with the need for further study of HB566 in a subcommittee, suggesting the use of a task force approach for law enforcement education on animal-related issues. They highlighted the lack of funding in the current bill and the need for a structured approach to ensure law enforcement is well-informed and capable of handling such cases effectively.
HB566: Representative Kwa Support01:33:45.440 - 10:32:11 AM; Representative Kwa expressed readiness to chair the subcommittee for further work on HB566, aiming to incorporate a task force approach as suggested. They emphasized the importance of getting the bill out before the deadline due to upcoming operational changes at Granite Place.
HB215: Representative Ger Information Only01:35:54.719 - 10:34:20 AM; Representative Ger discussed three potential areas for amendment to HB215 based on committee feedback: clarification on who chooses the independent third party for the report, whether the bill should apply to expansions of existing landfills, and the suggestion of an initial screening process focusing on net benefits before further permitting considerations.
HB215: Representative Bixby Information Only01:37:26.960 - 10:35:52 AM; Representative Bixby supported further work on two of the three amendment areas for HB215 mentioned by Representative Ger. They emphasized the importance of clarity on who selects the third party and the benefits of an initial screening process. They expressed doubts about applying the bill to existing landfill expansions, arguing that the harms and benefits of such facilities are already well-documented.
HB215: Representative Bixby Information Only01:39:21.599 - 10:37:47 AM; Representative Bixby argues that expansions of existing landfills do not require the same level of harm-benefit analysis as new sites because the impacts such as traffic, noise, and odor are already known and managed within existing permits. He suggests that expansions should not be included in the current bill.
HB215: Representative Ger Information Only01:40:47.599 - 10:39:13 AM; Representative Ger acknowledges the possibility of including a modified version of the bill for landfill expansions but prefers to exempt expansions from the current bill to keep it focused. He suggests revisiting the topic in the future with a modified process.
HB215: Representative Guber Information Only01:41:36.599 - 10:40:02 AM; Representative Guber supports looking into the impacts of landfill expansions but believes it should not be included in the current bill. He mentions the need for a study on the incremental impacts of expansions, suggesting that including it now would derail the bill.
HB215: Representative Penza Information Only01:42:23.760 - 10:40:49 AM; Representative Penza agrees with Representative Guber, emphasizing the need for the bill to focus solely on new landfill sites. He believes that existing data from expansions can be used later but should not be part of the current bill.
HB215: Representative Bixby Information Only01:43:09.560 - 10:41:35 AM; Representative Bixby concludes the discussion on landfill expansions, suggesting that the topic should be referred to the solid waste subcommittee for further discussion.
HB215: Representative Ktoa Information Only01:43:18.360 - 10:41:44 AM; Representative Ktoa raises a question about who will determine the net public benefit in relation to the bill, noting the lack of a definition for net public benefit. He suggests this be discussed in the subcommittee.
HB215: Representative Gerana Information Only01:43:44.040 - 10:42:10 AM; Representative Gerana agrees that the subcommittee should discuss the determination of net public benefit. He mentions that the director has suggested an initial screening phase involving experts, which the subcommittee could refine.
HB240: Representative Bixby Information Only01:44:30.480 - 10:42:56 AM; Representative Bixby suggests that while the current bill's solution is not ideal, the forfeiture statute should remain but be amended to allow municipal officials some leeway in improving compliance. He offers to draft an amendment for the animal subcommittee.
HB240: Representative Howard Support01:45:17.560 - 10:43:43 AM; Representative Howard agrees with Representative Bixby's suggestion for a minimal amendment to the bill, mentioning that the sponsor, Representative Manion, had sent suggested language which he did not see distributed to the entire committee. He will forward it to Representative Bixby for amendment drafting.
HB201: Representative Ger Support01:46:49.119 - 10:45:15 AM; Representative Ger supports the bill to prohibit declawing cats, arguing that the lack of reliable statistics should not hinder moving forward with the bill. He believes the practice happens often enough to justify action and cites the number of declawed cats in shelters as evidence.
HB201: Committee Researcher Christy Aleser Information Only01:47:35.360 - 10:46:01 AM; Christy Aleser, the committee researcher, provided an addendum correcting a mistake in her previous research on cat declawing. She clarified that a survey question from the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association was misinterpreted and did not pertain to declawing cats.
HB201: Representative Freeman Oppose01:48:21.159 - 10:46:47 AM; Representative Freeman opposes the bill, citing concerns over undermining veterinary autonomy and the potential for the bill to serve as a gateway for restricting other veterinary procedures. He argues that a complete ban would limit veterinarians' ability to educate clients about the procedure's drawbacks and believes declawing is not a significant issue in New Hampshire. He sees the market naturally moving away from the practice and supports veterinarians having the ability to discuss alternatives with clients.
HB201: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:51:48.040 - 10:50:14 AM; The speaker expressed opposition to the bill, citing a lack of compelling evidence to support a ban on the procedure in question. They mentioned being influenced by numerous groups advocating for the bill but ultimately found the absence of concrete data on the frequency and impact of the procedures in the state to be decisive in their opposition. They appreciated the clarity provided by the chair on the issue.
HB201: Representative Haskins Support01:52:42.560 - 10:51:08 AM; Representative Haskins expressed support for the bill, arguing that it does not undermine the authority of veterinarians. They believe that cat owners will continue to consult veterinarians and have necessary discussions about procedures. While acknowledging the lack of hard data, they felt there was sufficient anecdotal evidence to justify a ban on the procedure, viewing it as a statement against a cruel practice.
HB201: Representative Miner Oppose01:53:28.320 - 10:51:54 AM; Representative Miner opposed the bill, arguing that it oversteps legislative bounds by dictating veterinary practices. They expressed concern over the potential precedent this could set for future legislative interference in medical practices and concluded that they could not support the bill.
HB201: Representative Bixby Information Only01:54:15.679 - 10:52:41 AM; Representative Bixby summarized the committee's division on the bill, noting that further discussion might not sway opinions. They suggested that no amendments were necessary, and the bill should be voted on as is, with each member deciding based on their own evaluation criteria.
HB201: Representative Ktoa Oppose01:55:02.360 - 10:53:28 AM; Representative Ktoa opposed the bill, sharing an anecdote from their veterinarian who had performed a declaw procedure only once in five years due to the alternative being euthanasia. They emphasized the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and argued that a ban would interfere with this dynamic.
HB201: Representative Penza Information Only01:55:51.040 - 10:54:17 AM; Representative Penza suggested amending the bill, expressing conditional support if changes were made. They wanted penalties removed, clearer definitions, and amendments to gather data from shelters and veterinarians. They criticized the current bill's design and the lack of progress since its initial failure, indicating they could not support it in its current form.
HB201: Representative Haskins Information Only01:58:55.599 - 10:57:21 AM; Representative Haskins made a brief comment on the fallacy of the slippery slope argument, as taught in rhetoric, indicating a desire not to prolong the discussion.
HB201: Representative Kenny Oppose01:59:43.760 - 10:58:09 AM; Representative Kenny opposed the bill based on their 21 years of experience at a veterinary hospital. They described a less invasive declawing method they had used, which they claimed was effective and had no adverse outcomes. They argued against legislative interference in veterinary surgeries.
HB201: Representative Bixby Information Only02:01:18.800 - 10:59:44 AM; Representative Bixby suggested two possible paths for the declaw bill: exploring amendments or sending it back for further refinement. They recommended sending another bill (HB 566) to the solid waste subcommittee for amendment work and expressed reluctance to extensively rework the declaw bill, suggesting it could be revisited if it fails to pass.
HB355: Representative Karen Eel, Marac District 7, New London and Newbury Support03:05:26.040 - 12:03:52 PM; Representative Eel introduced HB355, which proposes to extend the term of the solid waste working group for five years and replace the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) with the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. As chair of the working group, she highlighted its achievements since its establishment in 2021, including working with the Department of Environmental Services on a long-range solid waste management plan and supporting legislation to meet solid waste diversion goals. She emphasized the group's active engagement and the need for continued work to achieve the state's waste management objectives.
HB355: Unnamed Speaker Support03:12:27.840 - 12:10:53 PM; The speaker, a member of the solid waste working group appointed by the House, expressed full support for HB355. They praised the group's work under Representative Eel's leadership and highlighted its role in discussing and pursuing various aspects of the state's solid waste policy.
HB355: Representative Wheeler Information Only03:13:19.439 - 12:11:45 PM; Representative Wheeler acknowledged the solid waste working group's diligent work and had no questions about the group itself. They sought clarification on the term 'moribund,' which Representative Eel explained as being tired and inactive. Representative Eel also shared their experience with reviewing statutory commissions and committees, emphasizing the importance of active commissions.
HB355: Representative EO Information Only03:14:57.160 - 12:13:23 PM; Representative EO provided information about the composition of the working group involved with HB355. They mentioned that the group includes representatives from various sectors such as municipalities with different recycling methods, healthcare, UNH for sustainability, Northeast Resource Recovery Association (NRRA), landfills (both privately and publicly owned), waste-to-energy reprocessing, and a company that uses recycled plastics to create new consumer products.
HB355: Matt Ley, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests Support03:17:00.279 - 12:15:26 PM; Matt Ley, representing the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, expressed support for HB355. He highlighted that while they are not experts in solid waste management, their experience as a land trust and forestry organization could bring valuable perspectives to the working group. Ley mentioned the importance of considering natural resources and long-term issues in solid waste management, and he referenced the 2019 study commission report which supports the involvement of diverse perspectives in addressing these issues.
HB355: Mike Whimet, New Hampshire DES Information Only03:19:19.160 - 12:17:45 PM; Mike Whimet, Director of the Waste Management Division for New Hampshire DES, provided information on the working group related to HB355. He stated that the DES is not taking a position on the bill but emphasized the collaborative and productive nature of the group, which includes diverse knowledge and perspectives. Whimet mentioned his ongoing involvement with the group since its inception and expressed willingness to continue working with it if its mission were extended.
HB355: Representative Bixby Support03:22:33.840 - 12:20:59 PM; Representative Bixby moved to pass HB355, citing the solid waste working group's successful track record and the bipartisan support for changes to its membership. The motion was seconded and passed with 15 votes in favor and one member absent. The bill was recommended for inclusion on the consent calendar.
HB179: Representative Mark Pou, Manchester Ward 8 Support03:25:33.479 - 12:23:59 PM; Representative Mark Pou introduced HB179, which addresses the fees for hazardous materials incidents. He explained that the current RSA requires the responsible party to pay for equipment used and contaminated during an incident. Pou proposed an amendment increasing the fine for non-payment from a flat $1,000 to $1,000 per day after 90 days, plus a 20% penalty until the bill is paid, to ensure municipalities are reimbursed for their expenses. He highlighted the financial strain on hazardous material teams and fire departments due to lack of funding and introduced Chief DeAndreis to provide further details.
HB179: Chief DeAndreis, President of the SEOS HazMat Team Support03:28:58.160 - 12:27:24 PM; Chief DeAndreis supported HB179 by explaining the financial impact of hazardous material incidents on fire departments and HazMat teams. He described a recent incident involving oil contamination of equipment, which necessitates replacement at significant cost. He stressed the importance of reimbursement to maintain readiness for future incidents and the difficulty in rebuilding equipment stockpiles without proper funding.
HB179: Representative Howard Information Only03:30:32.000 - 12:28:58 PM; Representative Howard inquired about the collaboration between the SEOS HazMat Team and Dees regarding accident responses. They also asked if Dees has the authority to impose penalties and fines, and collect monies. The response indicated uncertainty but suggested that fines might be possible in cases of wrongdoing.
HB179: Representative Information Only03:30:58.760 - 12:29:24 PM; The representative asked about the financial implications of equipment replacement, specifically how fines are structured. It was clarified that the fine starts at $1,000 after 90 days of non-payment, but the representative suggested a new structure where the fine would be $1,000 per day, incentivizing quicker payment.
HB179: Representative Miner Information Only03:31:46.880 - 12:30:12 PM; Representative Miner discussed a recent incident involving a large industrial washing machine used for cleaning hazardous materials from turnout gear. They were informed that the machine does not remove all oil residue, and sometimes gear becomes too contaminated to be cleaned.
HB179: Representative Penza Information Only03:32:57.479 - 12:31:23 PM; Representative Penza asked about the process following a spill by a company, such as XYZ Company. They learned that the fire department inventories damaged equipment, calculates replacement costs, and presents an invoice within 30 days. However, the current fine structure for non-payment remains in place until amended.
HB179: Representative Freeman Information Only03:33:55.880 - 12:32:21 PM; Representative Freeman inquired about the applicability of the penalty structure to private residences. It was clarified that if a hazardous material is released during a fire at a private residence, it falls outside the scope of the bill's penalties.
HB179: Representative Bixby Information Only03:34:50.760 - 12:33:16 PM; Representative Bixby sought clarification on the penalty structure, specifically how it would be paid to the claimant, which could be a municipality or town. They proposed a penalty structure starting at $1,000 a day after 90 days to encourage timely payment, as the delay in receiving funds for equipment replacement affects department budgets.
HB179: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:37:06.640 - 12:35:32 PM; The speaker expressed confusion about the payment mechanism in the bill, specifically how the $1,000 a day fine would interact with the cost of replacing equipment. They mentioned an amendment that aimed to cover the cost of equipment replacement plus a 20% penalty to incentivize quicker payment. They indicated a need for further amendment to clarify the goal of the bill to ensure reimbursement plus a penalty.
HB179: Representative Scully Information Only03:38:53.239 - 12:37:19 PM; Representative Scully raised concerns about the proportionality of the fines in the bill. They pointed out that the fine structure might unfairly penalize individuals with smaller bills compared to those with larger ones. The speaker noted the absence of language in the bill specifying an endpoint for the fines once the bill amount is reached, suggesting an amendment to clarify this.
HB179: Representative K Information Only03:39:53.439 - 12:38:19 PM; Representative K discussed the RSA and its implications for homeowners in the event of a fire involving hazardous materials. They expressed concern about the potential financial burden on homeowners who are unaware of hazardous materials on their property and the need for Hazmat teams. The speaker sought clarification on how such situations would be handled under the bill.
HB179: Representative Penza Information Only03:41:44.720 - 12:40:10 PM; Representative Penza asked for clarification on the ambiguity in the bill concerning homeowners and hazardous materials. They expressed concern about the potential for private citizens to be adversely affected and suggested further explanation in the bill to address this. They also inquired about the incident that prompted the legislation but received no detailed answer due to ongoing litigation.
HB179: Don D'Angelus, Epping Fire Chief and Chair of the Sea Coast Hazmat Team Support03:44:05.479 - 12:42:31 PM; Chief D'Angelus supported the bill, explaining the financial struggles of the Hazmat teams in New Hampshire, which rely on local funding and grants. He detailed several incidents where teams were not reimbursed for damaged equipment, severely impacting their operations. He emphasized the need for the bill to ensure timely reimbursement from insurance companies, which are typically responsible for covering the costs, to maintain the teams' functionality.
HB179: William McQuillin, SC Foad Information Only03:50:11.319 - 12:48:37 PM; William McQuillin began to speak but the transcript ends abruptly without further details on his testimony.
HB179: William McQuillin, President of the SE Coast Chief Fire officers Mutual Aid District Support03:50:15.520 - 12:48:41 PM; William McQuillin, representing the SE Coast Chief Fire officers Mutual Aid District, spoke in support of HB179. He emphasized the bill's potential to assist municipalities, particularly smaller towns operating under the SB2 system, which face delays in town meetings to replace gear and make necessary expenditures. The Mutual Aid District, covering 36 cities and towns in the Southeastern part of New Hampshire, views the bill as a way to amend existing laws to facilitate easier financial management for their members.
HB179: Representative Freeman Information Only03:51:05.279 - 12:49:31 PM; Representative Freeman questioned William McQuillin about the issue of insurance companies not reimbursing in a timely manner, which McQuillin confirmed as the crux of the problem. McQuillin suggested that amending the law to add more enforcement could compel insurance companies to pay quicker.
HB179: Representative Miner Information Only03:51:53.080 - 12:50:19 PM; Representative Miner asked McQuillin about the reasons behind insurance companies' delays in payment, to which McQuillin responded that disputes over responsibility and payment amounts vary case by case. He acknowledged the presence of disputes but also the potential for negotiation.
HB179: Representative Pateni Information Only03:53:11.040 - 12:51:37 PM; Representative Pateni raised concerns about whether the bill would effectively close a loophole allowing partial payments to absolve larger debts. McQuillin responded that the proposed amendment might not directly address the issue as described, suggesting further discussion on the matter.
HB179: Representative Scully Information Only03:54:42.199 - 12:53:08 PM; Representative Scully inquired about the frequency of bills being sent to private homeowners post-incident and the appropriateness of penalties for such individuals. McQuillin stated he had no experience sending bills to private homeowners but suggested a discussion on exemptions for homeowners might be warranted.
HB179: Representative Bixby Information Only03:57:00.000 - 12:55:26 PM; Representative Bixby sought clarification on the current penalty system and how the proposed bill would change it. McQuillin explained the intent was to encourage quicker payment but acknowledged uncertainty about the effectiveness of the proposed solution.
HB179: Representative Ktoa Information Only03:59:58.159 - 12:58:24 PM; Representative Ktoa expressed confusion over the bill's wording, particularly regarding fines versus bill repayment. McQuillin clarified that the intent was to encourage payment, not to create a fine system separate from the bill itself.
HB179: Representative Wheeler Information Only04:02:17.279 - 1:00:43 PM; Representative Wheeler asked about the potential hazards within private homes that could necessitate such penalties. McQuillin highlighted the unpredictability of household hazards, including chemical mixing and explosives, justifying the need for potential fines.
HB179: Representative Nick Gerana, representing Cheshire 15 (Chesterfield, Hinsdale, Keene Wards 1 and 3 through 5, Swanzey, Walpole, and Westmoreland) Support04:05:55.399 - 1:04:21 PM; Representative Gerana supports the moratorium on new landfills proposed in HB179, citing the need to address concerns raised by the Joint Legislative Committee (JL CAR) about the inadequacy of new landfill siting rules. He emphasizes that the moratorium would allow time to address these concerns through policy action, highlighting that there is no immediate capacity shortfall as the Turnkey facility in Rochester and Mount Carberry landfill in Success, NH, have capacities extending to 2034 and 2041 respectively. He argues that New Hampshire should not be the dumping ground for out-of-state waste, which constitutes nearly 50% of what is landfilled in the state, and stresses the importance of this legislative action given the new governor's concerns and alignment with the legislature.
HB179: Representative King Information Only04:09:47.680 - 1:08:13 PM; Representative King asks Representative Gerana about potential options for sending New Hampshire's Municipal Solid Waste out of state if a moratorium is enacted and in-state space runs out. He also inquires about where other states, like Massachusetts, would send their waste if they could no longer send it to New Hampshire. Representative Gerana responds that he is not concerned about where Massachusetts would send their waste and mentions that New Hampshire currently exports about 10% of its waste to neighboring states, which might increase slightly.
HB179: Representative Bixby Information Only04:12:58.960 - 1:11:24 PM; Representative Bixby raises concerns about the potential increase in waste due to population growth and housing development in New Hampshire. Representative Gerana responds by stating that such rapid growth is unlikely and emphasizes the need to address out-of-state waste to manage increased in-state waste. Bixby also asks about the legal ability to restrict private landfills like Turnkey from accepting out-of-state waste, to which Gerana notes there is an ongoing debate about the limits of the interstate commerce clause.
HB179: Representative Howard Information Only04:17:55.880 - 1:16:21 PM; Representative Howard questions the timeline for Turnkey's expansion application, stating that Waste Management mentioned starting the process in 2028 or 2029. Representative Gerana acknowledges this timeline as plausible and emphasizes that the moratorium would allow time to explore alternative waste management technologies and policies, such as recycling and incineration.
HB179: Representative Gruber Information Only04:19:32.640 - 1:17:58 PM; Representative Gruber inquires about the possibility of a moratorium on private landfill applications and the exploration of publicly owned landfills. Representative Gerana clarifies that the current moratorium applies to both public and private landfills and mentions previous discussions about all future landfills being publicly owned but leased to private operators. Gruber also asks about the capacity of other landfills like Lebanon and whether the moratorium would help meet diversion goals, to which Gerana responds that Lebanon is a public facility with specific contracts and that the moratorium would indeed push toward diversion goals.
HB179: Representative Ken Information Only04:21:51.880 - 1:20:17 PM; Representative Ken expresses concerns about the viability of investing in waste-to-energy plants during a temporary moratorium, suggesting that an indefinite moratorium might be more effective in encouraging such investments. Representative Gerana views the five-year moratorium as a policy tool to explore various options, including waste-to-energy, and does not speculate on extending or making the moratorium indefinite at its end.
HB179: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:24:28.040 - 1:22:54 PM; The unnamed representative asked if it would be possible to add a mechanism to the bill requiring an exploratory committee to research alternatives, suggesting that such research should be mandated within the bill itself rather than left to chance. The response indicated that numerous study committees have already addressed this issue, with the solid waste working group being particularly active. The work of this group has led to initiatives like food waste diversion, negating the need for another study committee as the focus should now be on enacting legislation based on existing research.
HB179: Representative Terry Spar, Grafton County (Hanover/Lyme) Oppose04:25:47.359 - 1:24:13 PM; Representative Terry Spar expressed strong opposition to the current landfill practices, highlighting the issue of out-of-state waste importation into New Hampshire. He emphasized that much of the waste contains harmful chemicals like PFAS, which are banned in neighboring states such as Massachusetts and Vermont. Spar argued that allowing such waste to be landfilled in New Hampshire poses a significant risk to future generations and the environment, potentially turning landfills into Superfund sites. He advocated for stopping new landfill permits and capping incoming waste from other states as proposed in the bill, to protect New Hampshire residents and prevent further environmental degradation.
HB179: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:28:22.960 - 1:26:48 PM; An unnamed representative asked Representative Spar about the potential for PFAS contamination from out-of-state products even if New Hampshire bans such items within its borders. The response acknowledged the complexity of PFAS regulation and the need for better recycling and disposal practices, though specifics on current regulations were unclear. The representative stressed the importance of preventing PFAS disposal in New Hampshire, regardless of its origin.
HB179: John Swan, Save Forest Lake, Dalton Support04:30:30.399 - 1:28:56 PM; John Swan, representing Save Forest Lake from Dalton, supported the bill, emphasizing the need for a landfill moratorium to prevent future environmental crises. He highlighted the potential threat of the proposed Granite State Landfill near Forest Lake and referenced existing issues with the NCS landfill in Bethlehem, which has PFAS contamination despite being touted as state-of-the-art. Swan argued that the moratorium would allow time to explore alternative technologies and better management strategies, preventing the recurrence of past mistakes and protecting the environment.
HB179: Nat Grace, Business and Industry Association Oppose04:38:28.240 - 1:36:54 PM; Nat Grace from the Business and Industry Association opposed the legislation, questioning the accuracy of the 2034 landfill capacity estimate and noting that policy decisions could alter this timeline. Grace emphasized that landfill capacity is a regional and cost issue, suggesting that exporting waste to other states could increase disposal costs for businesses. They argued that the potential cost increase due to policy changes must be considered in the decision-making process regarding landfill management and new facilities.
HB179: Representative Howard Information Only04:43:25.560 - 1:41:51 PM; Representative Howard engaged in a discussion regarding the cost implications of waste disposal, particularly focusing on how costs are borne by residents rather than the companies. They questioned whether the profit-driven nature of waste management businesses justifies the economic burden placed on New Hampshire residents. Howard highlighted the basic economics of companies choosing the cheapest disposal options and suggested that this practice disproportionately affects local taxpayers.
HB179: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only04:44:09.760 - 1:42:35 PM; The representative discussed the profitability of waste management and questioned whether all business opportunities are considered equal in terms of ethical and financial considerations. They used a personal example from Contoocook, where residents use a pay-as-you-throw system, to illustrate how disposal costs are influenced by local policies and the destination of waste. They raised concerns about the potential increase in costs if New Hampshire's waste capacity is exceeded and questioned the impact of out-of-state waste policies on local costs.
HB179: Representative Penza Information Only04:46:49.718 - 1:45:15 PM; Representative Penza questioned the relationship between waste management companies like Casella and the Business and Industry Association (BIA), asking if they have memberships. They also challenged the argument that costs would increase despite having over 50% capacity for New Hampshire waste, emphasizing that New Hampshire waste should be prioritized as per existing permits. Penza expressed frustration with what they perceived as circular arguments about cost increases and sought clarity on the timeline for landfill expansion permits and the implications for waste management.
HB179: Representative Bixby Information Only04:50:44.280 - 1:49:10 PM; Representative Bixby expressed concern about prioritizing New Hampshire's interests over those of other states, specifically regarding landfill capacity. They noted that New Hampshire trash has priority at landfills and questioned why New Hampshire should care about the disposal challenges faced by Massachusetts businesses and residents. Bixby emphasized their duty to represent and protect the interests of New Hampshire residents and businesses.
HB179: Representative Haskins Information Only04:52:11.680 - 1:50:37 PM; Representative Haskins acknowledged the various concerns raised during the hearing about landfills, waterways, and the acceptance of materials from surrounding states. They questioned whether a pause on new landfill permits until 2030 is unreasonable, given the ongoing issues and the work done by study committees and the solid waste working group. Haskins highlighted the need for a pause to address unresolved issues and ensure the safety of handling New Hampshire's waste.
HB179: Wayne Morrison, North Country Alliance for Balance Support04:55:10.958 - 1:53:36 PM; Wayne Morrison expressed strong support for the bill and appreciation for the committee's detailed discussion on solid waste issues. He highlighted the flat population and waste generation in New Hampshire, contrasting it with the influx of out-of-state waste. Morrison commended the progress made by the solid waste working group and advocated for aggressive waste reduction goals, emphasizing the need for composting and recycling initiatives. He urged legislators to be bold and support the moratorium to address out-of-state waste and other related issues effectively.
HB179: Nicole Dillon, Lancaster Support05:03:44.798 - 2:02:10 PM; Nicole Dillon shared her personal experience with toxic living conditions in Massachusetts and advocated for the bill's support. She emphasized the need for a temporary moratorium to establish proper supervision, regulation, and enforcement of waste management. Dillon expressed concerns about the lack of accountability and the impact on residents' health, urging the committee to consider the broader implications of waste disposal practices and the need for better communication and collaboration to address these issues.
HB179: Mike Winsat, Director of Waste Management Division, New Hampshire DES Information Only05:09:38.878 - 2:08:04 PM; Mike Winsat from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) addressed the committee to provide technical feedback on HB179. He mentioned that DES is not taking a position on the bill but highlighted several technical issues. He pointed out that under current law, if the agency accepts an application and does not act on it within a certain timeframe, the application is deemed approved, which he believes is not the sponsor's intention. He suggested potential amendments to clarify this issue. He also noted that the bill's language might cause delays in processing applications, suggesting that the agency should be allowed to review applications for completeness during the moratorium period. He raised concerns about the bill's provisions for new regulations or technologies during the moratorium, suggesting these should be addressed in another bill. Additionally, he identified potential issues with the bill's language regarding fully permitted facilities and expansions, suggesting clarification to prevent legal challenges. Lastly, he questioned the relevance of the bill's reference to perennial water bodies traversing landfill footprints.
HB179: Representative Penza Information Only05:15:17.920 - 2:13:43 PM; Representative Penza responded to Mike Winsat's testimony, agreeing with his first two points about technical issues in HB179. He clarified that lines 9 through 12 of the bill pertain to currently fully permitted landfills and not expansions, suggesting that the language is clear. However, he expressed concern about the term 'fully permitted' being potentially problematic due to the ongoing nature of landfill regulation and suggested that the language should be clarified to prevent misinterpretation that could affect landfill expansions during the moratorium.
HB179: Representative Bixby Information Only05:16:51.958 - 2:15:17 PM; Representative Bixby thanked Mike Winsat for pointing out the technical issues in HB179 and inquired if he would be available to assist in drafting an amendment to address these concerns. Winsat confirmed his availability for technical assistance.
HB179: Jared Sullivan, Bethlehem Support05:17:55.840 - 2:16:21 PM; Jared Sullivan from Bethlehem expressed support for HB179, highlighting its importance due to ongoing landfill siting controversies, particularly in his area. He mentioned a potential landfill site near Bethlehem, emphasizing the need for a moratorium to modernize regulations. He appreciated the technical feedback provided earlier and hoped it could be incorporated into the bill to improve it. Sullivan stressed the need for time to prevent future landfill issues and supported the bill to give the state a chance to update its regulations.
HR13: Jared Sullivan, Representative Support05:27:03.920 - 2:25:29 PM; Jared Sullivan introduced HR13, explaining his motivation to address the contentious issue of landfill siting near Forest Lake State Park in Dalton. He acknowledged the ongoing debate and outdated regulations surrounding landfill siting, emphasizing that the Forest Lake location is unsuitable due to its porous soil and proximity to the lake and river systems. Sullivan noted that while the resolution has no legal teeth, it would send a strong bipartisan message against the landfill site and could garner media attention to elevate the issue statewide. He hoped for bipartisan support to pass the resolution as a statement from the House.
HR13: Carolyn Cho, Nashua Support05:34:53.000 - 2:33:19 PM; Carolyn Cho from Nashua spoke in support of HR13, sharing her personal experience with cancer and her commitment to preventing it. She connected her fight against cancer to the potential environmental risks posed by a landfill near Forest Lake, mentioning the dangers of PFS (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) contamination. Cho emphasized the importance of protecting the state's first state park and the broader implications for public health. She urged the committee to consider the human impact and supported the resolution, hoping it would reflect bipartisan concern for the issue.
HR13: Penza Support05:41:42.280 - 2:40:08 PM; Penza expressed support for the public's involvement in the legislative process, emphasizing the importance of constituent voices. They acknowledged the significance of the individual testifying, reinforcing their value as a constituent and not just a number. They also mentioned their personal experience as a cancer survivor and expressed disappointment that the PAFF law did not meet their expectations. Penza encouraged the committee to pay attention to public health and suggested that everyone should invest in home filtration systems.
HR13: Nancy Morrison, Whitefield Support05:42:30.718 - 2:40:56 PM; Nancy Morrison from Whitefield, NH, urged the committee to vote in favor of HR13 to prevent the construction of a landfill near Forest Lake State Park. She highlighted the importance of protecting New Hampshire's state parks, emphasizing the environmental and economic threats posed by the proposed landfill. Morrison pointed out that the landfill would occupy a large area, potentially harm local ecosystems, and import significant waste from out of state, which could have long-term impacts on air, water, and soil quality. She acknowledged the resolution's non-binding nature but stressed its symbolic importance in showing the state's commitment to environmental protection.
HR13: John Swan, Dalton Support05:46:16.680 - 2:44:42 PM; John Swan from Dalton, NH, testified in support of HR13, sharing his personal legal battles with Casella, the company behind the proposed landfill. He explained how he had been sued multiple times for his public statements against the landfill project, emphasizing the financial burden and the company's attempts to silence opposition. Swan provided detailed information about the landfill's proposed capacity and its potential long-term impact, which he argued could extend far beyond the stated 18-year operation period. He urged the committee to consider the resolution's symbolic importance and the community's ongoing struggle against the landfill proposal.
Unclear: Representative Penza Information Only05:52:27.680 - 2:50:53 PM; Representative Penza proposed to immediately move to an executive session on HR13, but this was met with concerns about transparency and the need for proper notice to allow interested parties to attend. The discussion highlighted the importance of adhering to standard procedures for executive sessions to ensure public participation and awareness.
Unclear: Representative Kto Information Only05:54:26.040 - 2:52:52 PM; Representative Kto shared an invitation from the Young Farmers to host a breakfast at a farm in Londonderry on either March 17th or March 24th. The committee discussed the feasibility of these dates, considering their legislative schedule. They also discussed the possibility of holding the breakfast on the same day as an executive session to streamline their agenda.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:56:46.840 - 2:55:12 PM; The Committee Chair discussed the upcoming school vacation week, confirming that no meetings would be scheduled during that time. They also addressed the need to manage their workload efficiently, proposing to schedule additional meetings if necessary. The committee members provided their availability and preferences for additional meeting days, with a focus on maintaining productivity while respecting members' schedules.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:58:57.718 - 2:57:23 PM; The Committee Chair clarified procedural questions about house resolutions, confirming they can be placed on the consent calendar and require a simple majority to pass. They also discussed the assignment of bills to subcommittees, urging them to meet and prepare amendments. The chair shared updates on bill scheduling, including a potential reassignment of a paint recycling bill, and emphasized the importance of proper procedure to avoid inconveniencing stakeholders.

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