The House, Thursday, June 8, 2023

Speaker PackardThis is going to be a division vote on the amendment. Members take your seats. The motion before us is amendment (1979h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Verville for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this amendment makes minimal changes to SB 61 but increases the costs to the taxpayer from $150,000 to $200,000. And, Mister Speaker, if I know the increase in the amendment is for a third-party contractor consultancy to advise the Department of Environmental Services, our highly trained professionals that are adept at doing this, to help them do their work, to advise them on how to do their job. And, finally, Mister Speaker, if I know there is another amendment, a better amendment coming after this, would I now press the red button to defeat this amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Aron for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this committee amendment passed with bipartisan support in the Environment and Agriculture Committee. And, Mister Speaker, if I further know that this amendment makes SB 61 a much better bill by adding in RFP conflict of interest language and an extension period for new DES rules to be adopted, instead of reverting back to current rules for citing landfills. And, Mister Speaker, if I also know that we worked hard on language that would be acceptable to DES, the folks on the other side of the wall and other parties involved in crafting this legislation so that it can advance in the legislative process, would I now press the green button and vote to adopt this committee amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is committee amendment (1979h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 312 voting Yea, 61 voting Nay, the committee amendment was adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Potenza offers floor amendment (2167h) and is recognized to speak.

Rep. Kelley Potenza (R - Straf 19)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Being a new legislator, the process of getting to this point was quite disappointing. I know the Environment and Agriculture Committee has been down this setback for landfill road with several bills over the last few years. The most recent was HB 56 that was overwhelmingly passed by this body, 224-155 but was subsequently ITL'd by the other side of the wall. The pressure coming in to do something now feels like a fire burning that needs to be put out, not to be confused with the 3 solid wastes facilities that were on fire over the past few weeks in New England. Let's be clear, that we were told by the experts at DES that a new landfill in New Hampshire will not be needed for at least 20 years, maybe 30 or more with the food waste and composting initiatives and solutions that are finally coming to fruition in New Hampshire. Why is there such an urgency to push through a bill that is inherently flawed? That is the million-dollar question for which I believe we can all conclude the answer. My amendment fixes many of the critical red flags in SB 61. Our committee witnessed incredible disrespect from un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats threatening vetoes if there were any changes made to SB 61 and one gentleman from the agency saying his stakeholder was the Governor. The time, money and energy to run for state representative and to subsequently be elected and serve, to then watch a bill get pushed through which removes legislative oversight and authority was what brought me here. I haven't slept. I've worked on this for weeks. Our stakeholders are the citizens of New Hampshire that put their trust in us to make sure that unelected bureaucrats and industry gatekeepers aren't making laws that we were elected to do for the real stakeholders, that's the citizens of New Hampshire. Would we outsource the determination of a state speed limit to a private consultant? We all know the answer to that question. There's also some constitutional questions that come into play with SB 61 because the General Court is not allowed to delegate their authority to another body as well as there is some taxation without representation implications as well. SB 61 is based on the false premise that there is more science to study here. There is plenty of controversy but all of the science on this specific topic is actually settled. SB 61 outsources a fully legislative policy and that responsibility to a private consultant. My amendment changes so that this study gets reported back to the legislature. During our committee meeting, this amendment was introduced and received a bipartisan vote of 10-10. There were 4 absences on the committee that day so one can assume that this amendment would have received more support as the previous amendment did. I rise in strong support of the minor but critical changes my amendment makes to SB 61. Our constituents only want clean water and nontoxic living environments for themselves and their families. Many of these constituents have diligently and respectfully contacted our committee, been in attendance at committee meetings and have considerable and diverse expertise on this subject. Why did SB 61 exclude people in the study that had other expertise than a thicker piece of plastic wrap will do the trick? Maybe ones that might show greater forethought than the new Titanic is better than the old because we wrapped the new one in plastic. This amendment puts environmental science back in the room with the industry related engineers to execute a study which will help direct DES in the rulemaking for new site-specific setback rules, all while keeping a smart balance of respecting industry needs and the health and wellbeing of New Hampshire citizens. My amendment also helps to rule out undue technocratic bias. The language previously favored contracts that design and construct landfills. It is well known that such firms invariably tilt towards the conclusion that landfills are so well engineered that it doesn't matter where they are located. To counteract this bias, my amendment requires that contractors have experiences not only in landfill engineering and hydrogeology, but in also identifying and evaluating environmental and health risks. This is critical because some contractors put so much faith in the power of technology, they fail to adequately recognize the consequences of technology failure. The best contractor will be the one that gives due consideration to the limits of landfill technology and the benefits of equitably managing environmental risks. Lastly, and most importantly, the number two reason for my amendment, the language in SB 61, which was not changed in the previous amendment. If the department does not adopt rules in accordance with section 3 and 4 of this act within 24 months of the effective date of this act, the department shall apply its current rules applicable to surface water protection and determining the required setback to any application for such a standard permit that is being held in abeyance when such 24 month period expires and approve it if it complies with current rules. We were told that if we change this specific language in the bill, it would be vetoed or killed by the other body. Why would we ever pass a bill that says we are commanding a study that taxpayers are going to pay for that study, whether it's a $150,000 or $200,000 and we, the legislature, have no oversight once that said study is completed? But, if after the study, that we the people paid for, to help determine new rules if DES doesn't adopt new rules in 24 months, we can go back to the old non-sitespecific rules. This is a circular firing squad statement and completely rendered the bill useless. My change was simple. If the department does not adopt rules in accordance with sections 3 and 4 of this act within 24 months of the effective date of this act, the department shall hold any application for such a standard permit in abeyance until such rules are adopted. Isn't it time to put commonsense back into an issue that will affect New Hampshire citizens for decades, centuries to come? Wasn't this what we were elected to do? It is time to be brave and make doing the right thing popular again. Thank you.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)Hi there. I am Representative Wendy Thomas and I ask for your support on this very important floor amendment. Sometimes it's not easy being a legislator. We have to balance so many needs, the needs of our constituents, the businesses in the state, the welfare of others and sometimes we even have to balance with those in the other branches of government. Sometimes it can be difficult but sometimes it's very easy as it is in the case of this amendment. When we know we are making a bill stronger, when we know that people's health and welfare will benefit and when we know that our environment will be protected, it's easy to do. In fact, it's the reason why we are up here, to make good law and to help protect others. This amendment to SB 61 simply clarifies some terms and conditions that have been left so intentionally vague that if one wanted to, one could drive a truck, maybe even a garbage truck, through them. When a bill as important as where to place a landfill that will create toxic leachate, which could lead to environmental contamination does not consider all scientific or safety concerns which are needed to provide safety for the people who live near there and the environment, including wildlife, then it is wrong. When the bill outsources site specific setback analysis to a currently unknown consultant instead of performing it in-house, then Houston we have a problem. This bipartisan amendment recognizes those holes and defines vague terminology and sets guardrails in others. So, what does this amendment do that the previous amendment does not? Federal environmental laws generally seek to protect public health with "an ample margin of safety," but SB 61 only seeks to protect New Hampshire's waters "adequately." This amendment fixes that discrepancy on page 2, line 27 and puts this bill in line with federal standards. On page 2, line 32, it defines the term "representative" with travel time and its variable across the site. This has been added because the previous phrase "representative" in terms of groundwater speed without more definition of the actual conditions is something that can completely be determined by the developer. On page 3, line 4, the amendment changes a "shall" to a "may." One of our favorite changes to make. As in the department may take into account any measures proposed in the application for a permit that would provide greater or more redundant protection of perennial surface water than the department would otherwise require for under its rules. This change gives DES the option to consider or to not consider a proposal or part of a proposal. Page 3, lines 28- 31 have been changed to further define the permit application proposal and if the department realizes those measures, then the department shall require implementation of those measures as a condition to any permit. This change simply ensures that DES relies on measures and that those measures are implemented in the process. We are asking the Department of Environmental Services to walk their walk. On page 4, lines 6-9 there is language that proposes a statement of any potential conflicts of interest with any entity that may benefit from any change in setback requirements and that any preference be given to proposals that demonstrate the qualified consulting firm or individuals have credentials and experience in evaluating the health and safety risks associated with environmental protections, as well as the engineering and hydrogeological aspect of landfill design and siting. This change has been added to make sure that the health and safety risks are fully considered in all aspects. It also allows DES to consider whether the consultant has expertise in environmental protection, not only in landfill science. It makes sure that the right people are the ones who are doing the job. Page 4, lines 19-20 the term "adequate" is again defined as to protect perennial surface water with an ample margin of safety. Again, this change brings the bill to federal standards. Page 4, lines 28-30 the recommendation that soil, bedrock, proximity, demographics or other factors that would render a particular proposal new landfill site absolutely unsuitable for development. Other United States' states have thriving landfill industries despite regulations that absolutely forbid new landfills in super porous sandy soil. This amendment asks the consultant to at least consider whether similar protections might make sense for New Hampshire. All geological conditions must be considered. Page 4, lines 31-36 continuing to page 5, lines 1 and 2 the selected contractor shall complete the assessment and submit a final report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Environmental and Agricultural Committee making any recommendations for legislation or rulemaking to those committees within 150 days after contract approval. This is perhaps the biggest change. The final report would not go to DES, but instead it would go to the Senate and the legislature so we can use it to make recommendations for legislation or for rulemaking. This amendment also allows for public comment. Don't you think our constituents have a thing or two to say about landfills being located near large bodies of water or near them in their communities? We know that landfills leak. We know that people can get sick from exposure to these leachates. My town is living proof of this. Without proper protections water gets contaminated and people get sick. On page 5, line 14 there is removal of the 24-month restriction after the effective date of this act and on page 5, lines 24-25 there is a stipulation that the department shall hold any application for such a standard permit in abeyance until such rules are adopted. These changes were added because it just makes sense. Why proceed before you have definite rules? Okay, so why are these seemingly nit-picky changes being made? It's because we can't mess around with this, folks. This bill is about where landfills, which are piles and piles of potentially toxic garbage are going to be located and we have to make sure that the people who are making the decision receive fair, unbiased and scientific information on any proposed locations. We also need to make sure that the people, environment and wildlife are fully considered in this very important decision. Look, garbage is a way of life and until we change that, we will need landfills. However, these landfills must be placed where they can do the least harm to communities and our environment. The House already passed a perfectly good bill that would have solved this landfill siting problem. However, in the branch across the wall, they turned this into a study. Fine, if you want a study, let's have a study. However, toxic runoff and leachate from landfills is, quite frankly, a danger and a threat to public and environmental safety. We must put in the proper guardrails to ensure that every possible point is considered. Let's make sure that that study is well defined and well thought out and that the process is fair and complete. Let's give the Senate and the Governor the study they want, but let's make sure it directs the consultants to report to us the legislature for our consent or modification. This amendment does that. It lets us do our job. I urge you to support this well thought out and bipartisan amendment, which puts the guardrails in place that are needed when considering where to place potentially toxic and health and environmental altering landfills in our beautiful State of New Hampshire. Thank you.

Rep. Nicholas Germana (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise today admittedly reluctant in my support, and I will explain why my support is somewhat reluctant. We have heard a lot. We know a lot already about how we got to this point. We had a perfectly good bill that had specific setback rules that we passed in this House with broad bipartisan support. It was killed on the other side of the wall. We received SB 61. One of the greatest virtues, I think one of the things that made me want to work as hard as we could to get this bill through is the importance of the abeyance, a two-year abeyance while the rule writing process took place. I tried really hard. I know everyone on our committee did. I have great admiration and respect for our leadership on both sides of the aisle in our committee for all of the efforts that were made with all of the various stakeholders to make a bill that wasn't very good quite frankly, a bad bill for the people of the State of New Hampshire better. Unfortunately, at the last hearing that we had, there were a couple of straws that broke that camel's back, and, in the end, I concluded that I could not support the bill, as written. I want to share with you just 2 reasons among many why, in the end, I cannot support the bill, as written, and I rise today in support of this amendment. They both have been referred to before, so I won't go into detail but the first is an important change of language, that the bill, as written, contains reference to adequate protections for bodies of water. We wanted to have, based on expert testimony, we wanted that language changed to language that reflects the Clean Water Act that calls for ample margin of safety. We were told that was a no-go. That change of language, ample margin of safety, by the industry that this bill is supposed to regulate, we were told was a no-go. Likewise, the language that my colleague just referred to about representative travel time of groundwater. We wanted that. It's a pretty vague word, representative. I could drill 10 times or 50 times in a 50 square foot plot where I know I'm going to get the readings I want, and I can submit that as being representative of the site. We asked the wording be changed that would refer to variation across the site so that you would have to drill in lots of different places across that site and get scientific data that was genuinely representative of the site and not cherry-picked data. Again, we were told by the industry, that is supposed to be regulated by this legislation, that was a no-go. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. We have a rule writing process that is going forward, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues, whom I admire, whom I respect and whose hard work I am grateful for, I sincerely hope that they are right. That the oversight that this committee has the authority to do, the oversight that it is our responsibility to do during the rule writing process, I hope that we can use that oversight in order to make sure that the industry does not have the same power to influence the rule writing process that they clearly have had in the writing of legislation. Unfortunately, based on what I have seen, I have absolutely no confidence that would happen. The hiring of a consultant to produce a report, we all understand how that can work. If any of you have been attending some of the public sessions about the current 306 rule writing process, that's a process which is clearly driven toward a predetermined outcome and the result in the end will not be reflective of the needs and the interest of the people that we were elected to represent. So, I understand that if we adopt this amendment, the reality is in all likelihood that it's going to be killed on the other side of the wall or it's going to be killed in the corner office. That's why I am really reluctant to support this, but I can no longer accept the idea that some bill, any bill, even this bill is better than no bill. So, I rise today to ask all of you to support this amendment to make this bill reflective of the interest and the needs of the people of the State of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This floor amendment that is before us, while well intentioned, will ultimately kill this much needed bill. The amendment contains many impediments to SB 61's passage. It was not constructed with an eye to get coordinated support from the folks on the other side of the wall, or DES or any other interest parties. You and I know that when we do these bills, we do work together with a lot of people. That's the way it works. It comes before us today placed in your seat pockets without really being fully viewed or vetted. Furthermore, this amendment contains language which is too restrictive to the process of establishing new DES landfill siting rules. The amendment before you seeks to make finding a suitable third party to perform a study more restrictive and will surely limit the pool of applicants. This bill amendment will also draw out this process of rulemaking for landfill siting out in a manner which is unending. This amendment has no real timetable because if the rulemaking process is not completed in 2 years, then any permits held in abeyance can wait indefinitely until rules are established. This is an openended process that can essentially go on forever, and forever is not a good plan. The minority feels SB 61, as written and amended by the committee, doesn't go far enough to ensure public safety regarding landfill siting. This is simply not true because the original bill and its committee amendment will definitely help create improvements in our current 30-year-old rules. Additionally, DES has told us that they need assistance in performing the kind of analysis required to do the technical groundwork and research to create better and more technically robust landfill siting rules. The original bill and the committee amendment already accomplishes that. This amendment before you, if passed, will certainly not be acceptable moving on to the next step and if this bill dies, then it is guaranteed that nothing will get done this year with regard to meaningful legislation for landfill siting rule adoption. SB 61, as written and amended by the committee, is a good bill on its own and will provide DES with the much-needed expertise and assistance to update DES landfill siting rules. Finally, the rules for siting landfills in New Hampshire are set to expire next year. SB 61, with the amendment passed by our committee, will assist DES to reexamine its rules regarding landfill setbacks in an efficient and expedient manner. We must not let this chance get slipping away by adding in amending language that will ensure the death of this bill. I implore you to reject this floor amendment and pass the underlying bill and committee amendment, which is much needed and has already been vetted by many parties. Thank you so much for listening.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 61. The question is on the Potenza floor amendment (2167h). Who requested a division? Rep. Potenza requested a division. This will be a division vote. Rep. Wheeler has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is floor amendment (2167h). This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Haskins for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Linda Haskins (D - Rock 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that environmental laws generally seek to protect public health with an ample margin of safety, but SB 61 only seeks to protect New Hampshire's waters adequately. Further, if I know that SB 61 does not require the Department of Environ- mental Services to even consider whether a consultant hired to do this study has expertise in environmental protection, not just landfill design. And if I know that SB 61 does not at least ask the consultant to consider adverse conditions for siting landfills such as super porous soils, which other states have done. And finally, if I know that the legislature, which writes the laws to protect Granite Staters should exercise oversight over the study, including the right to review, question and comment on report, then would I press the green button and vote for the floor amendment that provides these assurances and protections? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Megan Murray for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Megan Murray (D - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that this floor amendment is well intentioned and highly protective, but also creates an open-ended rule writing process. And if I also know that many aspects of this floor amendment were similarly rejected on the other side of the wall. And if I also know that in order to prevent permits being issued under the unacceptable 200-foot setback, we need the abeyance in SB 61, as written by the committee, to be passed and signed into law, would I vote no or red on this floor amendment? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (2167h). This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 152 voting Yea, 226 voting Nay, the floor amendment fails. We are now onto Ought to Pass as Amended. The Chair recognizes Rep. Verville.

Rep. Kevin Verville (R - Rock 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Sorry for being a little tardy. Colleagues, I'm going to strongly encourage you to vote no on this bill. So, this bill is calling for a third-party consultancy to advise the Department of Environmental Services on rulemaking for landfill siting. DES is our highly trained professionals that we hire and trust to do this work. They are doing this work. So, what's the problem with getting a little help from a consultancy, other than blowing $200,000? The pro industry side is afraid that the consultancy is going to be the greenies and that we are going to wreak havoc and just put landfills wherever we want willy-nilly in New Hampshire. The greenies, and I don't mean that in a bad way because I have a green streak through me for sure, but if the greenies control it, the rules are going to be written so that it will be virtually impossible to site a landfill anywhere in New Hampshire. We hear people bemoan that we are importing trash from out of state and it's a travesty against New Hampshire. So, let me ask you a question. Sorry, let me ask you a question Mister Speaker. Where does our hazmat go? Where does our hazardous material go? It doesn't go into landfills. It doesn't go into hazmat mitigation facilities in New Hampshire. Do you know why? Because we don't have one. To the best of my knowledge, it goes to Ohio where they have a high temperature incinerator to dispose of such material. Imagine if Ohio decided they are not going to take New Hampshire's hazmat anymore? That would be a problem, a serious problem, not to mention it's interstate commerce which is beyond the purview of our control. If we can't site landfills, then we export all of our rubbish to some poor other state and that's not fair either. It's my opinion that our current siting rules are adequate and sufficient. This is all carryover from the Dalton landfill, Casella landfill hangover of a couple of years ago. That project has been recalled, right? That is no longer on the table. This bill is going to bite somebody where they don't want to be bitten and the best part of it is it's like rolling the dice. We don't know who it's going to bite until after we pass it and somebody else beyond our control hires the consultancy that's going to drive that bus. Is there a stopgap? Sure, there is a stopgap. JLCAR. Those rules, I assume, go to JLCAR. So, is that where we want to have this fight again? Or do we take a more rational, reasonable metered approach and entrust the Department of Environmental Services to do that which they have been tasked with. It's interesting and as far as I know somebody can bring testimony to the contrary, but the Department of Environmental Services is not asking for this. They are not asking for $200,000 to hire a consultant. They are quite confident they can do their job without interference from the outside world. I say God Bless them. Let's let them do their job that we have hired them to do. Let us trust our highly trained professional administrative staff to do their job. So, if you vote green, you are rolling the dice or flipping a coin I guess and so good luck to you. Me, I'm voting red. This bill has opposition from every angle, right? When everybody at the table has a problem with a bill, that's not the bill to pass, right? So, I encourage you to listen to the rest of the debate. Please consider what I've told you and when the times comes, vote red, vote red and kill this bill. Thank you.

Rep. Peter Bixby (D - Straf 13)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 61 deals with the rules for setbacks between new landfills and surface water bodies. We tried to provide highly protective guidance for the Department of Environmental Services with HB 56, which was ITL'd on the other side of the wall. SB 61 is the other body's approach to setback rules and our committee has amended it with a few improvements. As it came to us, SB 61 gave DES 2 years to make specific setback rules based on site hydrology and technical measures that increase protection. And at the request of DES, who said they would not be able to do this in the one year that the other body was originally thinking of but required 2 years and that they would not be able to do this without additional manpower in the form of a consultant which is a short-term fix rather than hiring new personnel forever. DES requested money for the consultant in order to make sure that they would be able to finish these rules in a timely manner. So, another very important aspect of SB 61, as it came to us, is that all permits are held in abeyance until the rules are in place, as long as it happens within 2 years. Our amendment adds explicit language that requires disclosure of conflict of interest, provides a small increase in funding to make sure that the RFP attracts a good selection of well qualified consultants and allows for a 90-day extension of the abeyance in case of extraordinary circumstances that might prevent the department from completing the rules within 2 years. If SB 61 does not pass, new landfill permit applications can be filed almost immediately and will be assessed under the current, completely unacceptable 200-foot setback. The committee amendment was negotiated to strengthen the bill as much as possible without inviting a vote of nonconcurrence on the other side of the wall. We wanted to make the bill more protective, but we were assured that more stringent language would in fact cause the bill to fail. SB 61, as amended, creates a clear process for better rules and most critically it stops all permit approvals within the next 2 years. Please vote yes on OTP to protect our New Hampshire waters. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on SB 61. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. Division has been requested. Nobody in that wasn't here. The motion before us is the majority committee report of Ought to pass as Amended on SB 61. This is a division vote. The Chair was unsure of the yelling. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 236 voting Yea; 132 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.