The House, Thursday, June 29, 2023

Speaker PackardRep. Aron moves that we adopt the Committee of Conference Report. The Chair recognizes

Rep. Nicholas Germana (D - Ches 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The last time, I guess it was about a month ago, I got up to speak about SB 61, I described to all of you what we saw in the committee and the influence of the industry that made me step by step move to a position where I couldn't support the bill as it was written. Since that time, some of you may have seen the article that was in the Concord Monitor. This is also in a number of other media outlets. We have received confirmation in the form of an emails between a lawyer for Casella Waste Management and officials at DES which have confirmed the suspicions that I and others have had about how directly Casella has shaped this process and dictated the terms of the legislation that we are voting on.

Speaker PackardThe member will suspend. I know this is a very controversial bill, but we are not going to allow any intent to be brought onto anybody, whether it be state employees, whether it be private people or whether it be a lobbyist. So, for all the members who are going to speak on this bill, keep that in mind that's not allowed. Representative Germana: Okay, thank you, Mister Speaker. Each of us has a very difficult decision to make today. I don't pretend this is an easy decision to make for anybody on either side of the aisle. What I want to say today is that whether you vote in favor of the Committee of Conference Report or you vote against it, we have to think about what our responsibilities are going forward. If you vote in favor of this amendment, pardon me, the report and the bill, it has a 2-year abeyance, and that 2-year abeyance is not nothing. I concede that, but it is still our responsibility to exercise all of the oversight that we have been tasked with exercising by the people who sent us here. We need to have an oversight committee in E & A, Environment and Agriculture. We've talked about that. We need to follow it every step of the line from the report that takes 120 days to the writing of the rule process. Seeing how much this bill has been crafted by special interests only reinforces how important that oversight responsibility is. Likewise, if you vote against this today, the rules will expire in June of next year. At that point DES will have to rewrite rules. That is their responsibility, and it is our responsibility to oversee it with or without SB 61. My concern as I have expressed before is that the hiring of a consultant which is favorable to the industry will lead to a writing of rules which is favorable to the industry. I was not elected by special interests representing any industry. I'm not here to represent the interests of any particular industry. I'm here to represent the interests of the people in my district and the people of the State of New Hampshire. So, whether SB 61 passes or it doesn't pass, whatever side you end up voting on, what I implore you to do and implore this House to do is to strenuously, to vigorously exercise our oversight responsibilities every step down the line to make sure that the rules we get are a lot better than the bill we got. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Kelley Potenza (R - Straf 19)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I have clearly stated all the reasons SB 61 needs to be thrown in the trash, pun intended. SB 61 has always been bad for health and the environment. Not only kicks the can down the road, but it kicks it in the wrong direction. I'm not here to rehash any of the arguments against it. I'm here to present new information we didn't have when we voted 226-152 against my bipartisan floor amendment three weeks ago. Although there is obvious ethical issues with drafting this legislation throughout the six-month process to get here, I am more upset with the fact that this influence and control is blatantly putting the future and health and safety of New Hampshire citizens at risk. And with all the new information we have leading up to today, there shouldn't be one vote in this House to concur with SB 61. If you are stuck on the only argument in support of SB 61 because of a 2-year abeyance on landfill permitting while new rules are written, here is why that argument doesn't hold water. DES has repeatedly said they are already well into writing new setback, site specific setback rules because the current rules expire in July 2024. So, this process is well underway. This bill is 100% not necessary. Why would we spend money on a report which only hears from one expert with one point of view versus multiple points of view. If DES needs more expertise to complete these rules, the legislature can easily provide by holding a one-day public hearing inviting all the experts to provide all of their information, the data, the models, etc. to be compiled for the agency. Over the last 3 years of hearings, we have tons of free and readily available information from all points of view they can utilize to help them. Hey, I'll even volunteer to compile it all for them. SB 61 guarantees a one-sided report favoring the industry stakeholders. Why would we ever pay $200,000 for a one sided, you know, information which is already free? We know that the industry already has the information in this report that is like easily accessible. They can literally just grab it out of a filing cabinet or a top drawer. The E & A committee knows this because they have been hearing this information for years now. So why is there a rush to pass this bill which removes legislative oversight, when New Hampshire doesn't need another landfill for at least 20 to 30 years? This body should easily see the agenda here and answer that question. Shouldn't our focus next session be on reducing the amount of out of state trash we are taking in from states like Massachusetts? The other body killed HB 56 with almost no discussion and then insisted on making more changes to their own bill that we concurred with on June 8. That's the only reason we are still here talking about landfills. But the changes made the bill even more friendly towards the one company at the heart of this issue. The sad part is the bill actually got better for the industry in the Committee of Conference. So, between January and June, there was a whole strong-arm approach from the Senate that they wouldn't take anything from the House and then in the Committee of Conference, they actually changed the conflict interest statement and it's now worthless. It basically talks in circles. I look forward to my colleagues on the other side who will talk common sense about their traditional core value of protecting the environment while not unduly burdening the industry. Certainly, the two chambers can come together in January and produce a bill that offers some real protections for New Hampshire surface water. Until our state can produce a detailed setback rule, there is an obvious stopgap improvement in the meantime. Simply, DES could change the ridiculous 200-foot uniform setback rule to one that says basically the Department of Environmental Services will choose a site-specific setback to surface water in every individual permit application from now on based on local hydrogeologic conditions. No new bill is needed right now. No taxpayer funds need to be spent. Period. End of story. When new information arises, it's time to change course. Let's make doing the right thing popular again. Please vote no to nonconcur with SB 61. Mister Speaker, I ask for a division vote.

Rep. Linda Haskins (D - Rock 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Colleagues, I rise again to talk about my reservations with this bill. As indicated by my esteemed colleague, Representative Germana and my other esteemed colleague, Representative Potenza, there are problems with the process in getting us to where we are today. The process was entirely weighted on one side. Previously my colleagues had written a good bill, HB 56, but the folks on the other side killed the bill and gave us a study bill. It never made sense to me. Now we know why the bill was so weak and the process has gone from bad to worse. With the evidence in hand, we now see why the bill does not reflect the wishes of the people who will be most affected by it. The process was neither fair nor transparent. Our committee was told that this bill was not about a particular company or a particular landfill, but respectfully evidence has proven to the contrary. People who will be directly impacted by this bill do not want the bill and they certainly do not want the landfill. They now have no confidence in the process. They are not granted a seat in this Hall. We sit here as their representatives. If we do not represent their interests, who will? I now know that a bad bill is really not better than no bill. If this bill fails, DES will have a year and all the help they need to write a better rule than is currently on the books. There are qualified scientists and professionals with all the knowledge to assist them for far less than $200,000. Meanwhile, we will be watching. Going forward we must do better than this flawed process. Our natural resources are the reasons so many people want to live in New Hampshire or come visit our state. Only a fool seeks to foul his own nest. If it's true, that the measure of a man or a woman is what they do with power. Let it be said that in advocating for the rights of those who will bear the burdens of the decisions we make here, they are foremost in our thoughts as we weight these decisions in accord with our conscience. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. First of all, this is the last day and let me just say thank you to all the Representatives who have shown me a freshman with dreadlocks such respect in my first term in the New Hampshire State House. This is New Hampshire and that's why we are here so thank you. I rise today in support of nonconcur on this legislation because we have water warriors in the North County who are begging us to protect their water. I rise today because born and raised in New Hampshire, I am going to be damned if I'm going to let our water be controlled by an industry which has no qualms whatsoever for destroying our land, our environment, our lakes. This is not Casella's body. We are the New Hampshire House of Representatives. We are elected by our constituents and none of us can go to our constituents after passing a bill such as this and say that we protected our environment. There is no rush here. The people of the North County want us to kill this bill. That's exactly what we should do. Listen to my colleague from Keene, my colleague who sits behind me and my colleague over there from Manchester. Join us in standing against Casella, against their lobbyists. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Representative will refrain from referring to the company. The Chair recognizes

Rep. J.R. Hoell (R - Merr 27)That is quite the speech to follow. Thank you, Mister Speaker. The bill as amended by the House, and I'm going to read an important section and talk about what the language means. This is in section 3, paragraph III-a, `criteria for determining a site-specific setback of a landfill footprint from perennial surface water bodies'. That would be lakes, rivers, streams. `To prevent, attenuate, or otherwise remediate the potential release of contaminates to each such surface water body from the landfill footprint. Any rules adopted by the department under this paragraph shall, in addition to any other factors the department deems necessary for the rules to provide adequate protection.' Adequate protection. Is that good enough in a state where tourism is an important element? Where our rivers and streams and the natural beauty of our state is something we all want to protect? Shouldn't that say something like best-in-class protection? Adequate doesn't seem good enough. We were put here by our citizens as the largest legislative body in the US, other than Congress to represent their wishes. I would think that everybody in this room wants to do their best to protect our natural landscape, to be good stewards of the environment. Not necessarily to worship it, but to be good to stewards of it so we protect it so we can pass it on to our children. I would ask that you would oppose the concur motion and make sure the rules that are adopted go through this body in particularly in a way that protects our water bodies, our streams and our lakes. Thank you.

Rep. Judy Aron (R - Sull 4)Thank you, Mister Chair, Mister Speaker. Sorry. SB 61 provides procedures for DES rulemaking on setbacks on new landfills and surface water bodies. The Committee of Conference agreed to use the House version we passed 2 weeks ago with an amendment which corrects typographical errors and clarifies the language for the one-time extension of the rulemaking deadline that was the House version. This bill directs DES to hire one or more consultants to examine current laws and rules and recommend updates to those rules that take into consideration a set of technical factors including soil, stratigraphy, permeability, volume, gradients and travel time of groundwater supplying the surface water body, bedrock lithology and structure, hydraulic conductivity and other factors the department deems necessary. The Commissioner of DES, Bob Scott, is in favor of this bill. Currently, DES does not have the manpower or expertise to do this work alone. The bill, this bill, grants DES the help they have requested without incurring the cost of one or more new permanent staff hires. Third party assistance here makes sense, and it will be done through an RFP process that has specific requirements and language preventing any conflict of interest as well. Additionally, there will be points along this rulemaking process for public scrutiny and public input. The language in SB 61 was crafted by Senate Members, House Members, DES, business stakeholders, the North Country Alliance for Balanced Change and other parties. That is how legislation is normally crafted in our committees and chambers. We all know that nothing isn't done here in a vacuum. SB 61 is written and amended by the Committee of Conference is sound and vetted legislation and will provide DES with the much-needed expertise and assistance to update its current 30-year-old landfill siting rules. It is very important to note that during the process of establishing new landfill setback rules, any and all landfill permit applications will be held in abeyance and when the rules are completed within 24 months, the permit application must be modified to comply with those new rules. If this Committee of Conference Report is not accepted by you today, then any landfill permits can be granted next week or next month, this year or next year with the old rules still in place, which includes a minimum 200-foot setback from a body of water. That is not an acceptable option. By accepting this Committee of Conference Report, it will give the landfill permit granting activity a two year pause with a onetime 90-day extension, if necessary, and that will happen right away. This bill is possible now. We can eliminate the current possibility of a 200-foot setback to any body of water now and we can give a two year pause to permitting now while new rules are still being developed. We must not let this important chance slip away and I urge you, my colleagues, to support and pass this Committee of Conference Report now. Thank you and thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardRep. Potenza has requested a division. Members take your seats. This will be a division vote. The motion before us is to concur on SB 61. This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Comtois for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Barbara Comtois (R - Belk 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that DES is already in the process of writing the rules and I have been assured that they will be completed in August of 2024 and that the permitting process take a minimum of 2 years, minimum. And Mister Speaker if I know that this is a feel-good bill that we in the E & A Committee were told that this would be the only bill the executive branch would sign by someone at DES and that a lobbyist for one of the parties helped with the language. And Mister Speaker if I know that any information given to DES by the consultant can be ignored. Let me repeat that, can be ignored, why would I then spend $200,000 of taxpayer money? Mister Speaker, if I know that as a member who lives in the Lakes Region, the protection of our lakes is not something that we should take lightly. And finally, Mister Speaker, we are the legislative branch elected by our constituents. We are beholden to them, not to the executive branch, not to an agency and certainly not to any lobbying group, would I now press the red button for nonconcur? 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 SB 61 included many stakeholders' inputs and that it includes conflict of interest language, a 2-year ban on siting landfills and that our rules process is open to the public with stakeholders and that the rules process has joint legislative oversight. And if I also know that a couple of weeks ago this was our house position, would I now press the green button to accept the Committee of Conference Report? Thank you.

Speaker PackardHas everybody turned on their voting stations? Make sure you do. The motion before us is to concur on SB 61. 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. 134 voting Yea; 238 voting Nay, the Committee of Conference Report fails.