[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6379774,"mediaKeyId","2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d","parentId",2135178,"title","Committee hears bill to require independent harms‑and‑benefits appraisal for landfill permits","audioSeconds",955,"startMs",5262000,"endMs",6217000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d&start=5262&end=6217","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d/thumbnail_5262000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6379774/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-require-independent-harmsandbenefits-appraisal-for-landfill-permits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379774-f26da6a53d1ea8adb7a0d8ccb7ea4eca/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183421&Signature=EFStUzq~dGQl5UyA~SarysrXSssgIKVwK8xUlPh41ocktyvI0SZ4X4pNGIuVh03Dm~bryq~8jILWYQL22NthxTW933syc49G2qT3FmrIkZtM2W2y4j4AbmKMeU3scJPyf6W28DB-bLK9v8YPJgbndV0KG8FKJ3d-Ssbvlmw3uNSMh5g2dtXSbYjoolq8AJZ~Cypn4UWz7oA7bHXFSql73IYIbTOAdnYvzSBlD2pQFbJwSwcky2CDMXEUkdA9SDIECIWJU7Ll-bY1sNYi~KOi1f70YpXQ8us6FKz~8ezpbV~j7J5N9Ld9DeBi2xflCDWVOtpAsBQ2zqgyFunEnat9zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-01-21T00:00:00Z","article","A bill that would require landfill permit applicants to hire independent third parties to analyze potential harms and benefits of proposed solid‑waste facilities drew a lengthy hearing before the Environment & Agriculture Committee.

Representative Nick Germanna, sponsor of HB 215, said the measure would add a ‘‘net public benefit’’ test to New Hampshire’s existing permit standard: an applicant must demonstrate that the benefits of a proposed facility outweigh its harms. The bill also would bar applicants from linking benefits at one site to a project at another site, and it would narrowly define ‘‘capacity need’’ by requiring a projected capacity shortfall in the state for at least half of the permitted life of a facility.

Representative Germanna said the bill borrows from established practices — the federal National Environmental Policy Act and some state siting statutes — that require accounting for social, economic and environmental impacts. He argued applicants already have the resources to commission studies and that requiring an independent assessment, paid for by the applicant, would give communities reliable public information about long‑term consequences such as property values, recreation, traffic and water resources.

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) testified that it is not taking a position for or against the bill but said several practical questions need study. Waste Management Division Director Michael Wimsatt said DES does not currently have the staff expertise to independently evaluate some broader social and economic impacts such as transportation‑system effects and property‑value changes and suggested a two‑step approach: an initial screening of public benefit and broader community impacts, followed by the usual technical permitting review only if the project clears that stage. He said DES is open to studying how such a process could be structured but cautioned that rulemaking and additional staff or outside experts would likely be needed.

Supporters urged the committee to pass HB 215. Amy Manselli, attorney for the North Country Alliance for Balance Change, said the bill would create a balancing test already present in other New Hampshire statutes and would prevent applicants from assembling benefits from multiple separate projects to justify an otherwise damaging landfill. Nancy Morrison of Whitefield asked whether a harms‑and‑benefits analysis might have changed outcomes at earlier controversial permits, and Michael Wright of Littleton called the proposal a common‑sense modernization.

Industry witnesses described the bill as duplicative or ill‑timed where an existing landfill seeks a modest expansion. Henry Veil of Waste Management said many impacts at a long‑operating site are already known from decades of operations; he questioned the value of requiring a fresh independent appraisal for incremental expansions and argued that the bill, as written, would impose costs without improving decision quality for existing facilities. Waste Management also noted the company has previously demonstrated public benefit in permit filings and that routine data — traffic counts, complaint logs, monitoring results — are already available in the public record.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several procedural questions: who would hire and select the independent reviewer; whether the reviewer should be chosen by DES, the applicant, or jointly; how the reviewer’s scope would be defined; and how to score or weigh qualitative harms (for example, impacts on recreation or property values) against capacity benefits. Director Wimsatt suggested that professional organizations and existing task‑force models (for example, NEPA processes, the site evaluation committee for power projects) could provide models for selecting reviewers and structuring the work.

Representative Germanna said he expects DES to write rules to implement the net‑public‑benefit approach and indicated he was open to amendments that specify selection mechanisms for third‑party reviewers or that require DES to oversee the selection process while the applicant pays the cost.

Outcome: The bill was heard; no committee action was taken. Witnesses and the sponsor identified multiple technical drafting and implementation issues for future amendment work.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Environment and Agriculture (01/21/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","A bill to require an independent harms‑and‑benefits assessment for landfill permit applicants and to tighten the definition of capacity need drew mixed testimony from agency officials, industry and community groups.","taxTitle","Environment and Agriculture, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17747,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379770,"Committee hears bill to remove warrant seizure clause tied to unpaid dog‑license fees",832,11189000,12021000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d&start=11189&end=12021","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d/thumbnail_11189000.jpg","/articles/6379770/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-remove-warrant-seizure-clause-tied-to-unpaid-doglicense-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379770-4d73f58e895ed24c0175d765feaa6744/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183421&Signature=Mka62eJD3Gwwji4W7u2Eohnl8z7IkfFZl58OBL4VXdXLX5iSRmYP0R5bpqWAd38QUORSy4Oah8872Yl~p21p-Vc5PE0kFtUVF~aY-RLk9408taqDBXBkMCzCccE6imdMrbiKlYwkHsQR-nXn7XHmn4Bz6JmTbZix8Q0aiKIqjocvqfstLO97AP9JCsUbIX53xImmVLq~kQjSKFahAIzBPl7HUfboMWI-FH8tEZbo9vMFWx4BF7gPplvD4-0D-9oaSAr7yj7G9afxXahpsqTkABavQmLczf5YDmKzOHnAW0U3Tm1Y4Lku-Pzaszk80jhqLzvzMKI8Mb91kVBYcQ3gtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill to strip the part of state law authorizing local authorities to obtain a warrant to seize a dog for unpaid license fees prompted a hearing in the Environment & Agriculture Committee focused on public‑health risks and the practical effects of enforcement.

Representative Tom Mannion, sponsor of HB 240, said the bill does not remove vaccination requirements or remove financial penalties. Instead, he told the committee the measure would repeal statutory language that allows local officials to seek a warrant authorizing law enforcement to seize a dog solely for nonpayment of license fees. He offered the change after a constituent seeking a medical exemption for an elderly dog faced an automated forfeiture notice and perceived a risk that local officials could take the animal if the fee was not resolved.

Supporters described the current warrant language in RSA 46614 as a frightening escalation and an enforcement tool that can distress owners who are working with veterinarians or the state veterinarian to obtain exemptions. Representative Mannion and Representative Freeman described cases where owners who were resolving vaccine‑exemption paperwork nonetheless saw forfeiture lists sent to local governing bodies.

Town clerks said the law’s ordinary administrative steps remain useful. Tina Guilford, Derry town clerk, told the committee towns use a sequence of notices, automated reminders and a civil‑forfeiture process leading to a possible district‑court action; she said most municipalities do not actually seize pets and that clerks try to help owners obtain required rabies records. Guilford recommended keeping civil penalties but said she would not support routine seizure of animals.

Vaccine and public‑health advocates urged caution before weakening enforcement. Veterinarian Dr. Lisa Boyer testified in strong opposition, saying rabies is fatal and nearly always preventable; she said exemptions are available through the state veterinarian but that penalties deter noncompliance and help ensure high vaccination rates, which protect the public, veterinary staff and animal populations.

Representatives debated alternative fixes. Several lawmakers suggested amendments allowing town clerks discretion to withhold seizure notices while an exemption is pending, or funneling unpaid civil penalties to the district court rather than authorizing selectmen‑level issuance of seizure warrants. Representative Howard suggested clarifying section 13 (financial penalties) while removing warrant authority in sections 14–16; sponsor Mannion said his intent was to remove warrant‑seizure authority and to preserve the civil penalty and rabies reporting.

Outcome: The bill was heard; committee members asked for drafting options balancing public‑health protection (rabies vaccination compliance) against the risk that automated enforcement could lead to frightening interactions and forfeiture of pets already in exemption review.","A bill to remove statutory language allowing local authorities to obtain warrants to seize dogs for unpaid license fees drew testimony weighing owner hardship against public‑health enforcement.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379765,"Committee hears renewed push to ban cat declawing; veterinarians urge preserving clinical judgment",1745,13161000,14906000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d&start=13161&end=14906","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d/thumbnail_13161000.jpg","/articles/6379765/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-renewed-push-to-ban-cat-declawing-veterinarians-urge-preserving-clinical-judgment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379765-38180895f2c2ff6056792e147a46589b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183421&Signature=gotUmtUXOYH5RH05ea5QUoVqDBaXufXZr-bP1GGRxHdmgLivvWCOlCIBt~DsA5-jCvMlNVeL6dj2qugLUUm2zlZT3yRfoMy-HpcLOm0z-tlth84DWOZVkgmqR90gir~KfVbvKO9AekNp2GYPUeivDCaovrvbkTWhLOwg9RCGV2X8KPnF4sQ1sZB41klcUXHIm1TGIQyumqgeS8p2OWObE9LIXLLtMYuevYooq-hbCJre4iB4G5Ef8k8-VJBE25tCOZ1pCK79ji4yv~XWauofuNJ9A0j-NHRvtOxI7ZdnINu2S~HCkFppkotDos8eBrwHodlcEifntx-l1Z8UUtEGew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill to ban removal of cats' claws drew a high‑attendance hearing and sharply divided testimony from animal‑welfare advocates, practitioners and shelter operators.

Representative Vourdes introduced HB 201, a proposal to prohibit declawing — defined in the bill as onychectomy, partial or complete phalangectomy or tendinectomy — except when medically necessary. She described declawing as an amputation that can cause long‑term pain and disability and said veterinarians and municipalities increasingly decline to perform the procedure.

Animal‑welfare groups, shelter directors and residents offered firsthand testimony about short‑ and long‑term harms. Kurt Ehrenberg of the Humane Society of the United States and owners who had adopted declawed cats described behavioral changes, litter‑box problems and chronic paw pain. Toni McClellan, a former shelter director, said she had seen large numbers of declawed cats returned to shelters with behavioral problems and long‑term pain and urged a ban with medical exemptions for true clinical necessity.

Opponents included the New Hampshire Veterinary Medical Association (NHVMA) and practicing veterinarians, who said the number of veterinarians still performing declaws in state is small and falling, and that the profession needs clinical latitude. Dr. Jane Barlow‑Roy, representing NHVMA, told the committee the association overwhelmingly does not perform routine declaws and opposes legislation that would substitute statutory rules for veterinary professional judgment; she said 83% of NHVMA members reported they do not offer the operation. Dr. Lisa Boyer, a practicing veterinarian and court‑qualified expert in animal welfare, also opposed the ban, saying it would remove an opportunity to diagnose and treat underlying problems and could undermine the veterinarian‑client‑patient relationship.

Committee members pressed witnesses for data. Several lawmakers said available surveys mix declawing with other elective procedures (tail docking, ear cropping) and requested clearer prevalence figures. The NHVMA said data collection is difficult because of licensing and cross‑state practice; multiple witnesses suggested an anonymous statewide survey to quantify current practice. Proponents argued that even a small number of declaws is unacceptable and cited recent bans in Massachusetts and parts of the European Union.

Representative Germanna and others asked whether a narrower amendment — for example, keeping civil penalties but making declawing unlawful for non‑medical reasons — would achieve sponsor goals while preserving medical exceptions. Representative Vourdes said the bill would allow medical exemptions for cases such as tumors requiring amputation but would bar routine, convenience declaws.

Outcome: The bill was heard; no vote was taken. Members asked for more precise prevalence data and discussed possible narrower amendments that preserve clinical‑necessity exemptions while restricting elective declawing.","Lawmakers heard dueling testimony on HB 201, a bill to prohibit non‑medical removal of cats’ claws, with animal‑welfare groups and shelter staff documenting harm and the state veterinary association urging preservation of clinical judgment.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6379780,"House committee hears bill to require specialized animal‑cruelty training for 20 law‑enforcement officers",1078,44000,1122000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d&start=44&end=1122","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2135178-430e69dba1265cbd6ae8c5a810e1d52d/thumbnail_44000.jpg","/articles/6379780/New-Hampshire/House-committee-hears-bill-to-require-specialized-animalcruelty-training-for-20-lawenforcement-officers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6379780-6d8597d0f0a08a6d9248aaa8274ffd86/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183421&Signature=MLgay82aEEQItUM~zt6FR-wPOK3s1s-MM9tHUSnC-RIo1cKgj1AKzfqIucF6jM1nqfG3u~vtvnksACSrVg-mIv9Ca0SD61cqj9s7NEbGBno2iPFXrR2KWC0yIWQqNiC4SugzJHXMVy~P--z8wWE0y~RbhQhUxVwj88TClhAcxp~yLyDHoPq0GIfpkB40ivMZ5-yaPKR9Gukg-H6H7OSzhmQSKNvN5991FQojQYOaTr5R4uqiPlRaSvJrDGdEXtKd~-JwG2V9hUCkeso1hN7diwGval4h2fpfNaj3kmI9Fy4wSU0AjEahG5fuq23n7z18f3-B-RpQcy~9zYCl9qRU8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill that would require an eight‑hour animal‑cruelty training course and a two‑hour refresher every three years for a small number of law‑enforcement officers in New Hampshire drew support and skepticism during an Environment & Agriculture Committee hearing.

Representative Barbara Comteuil, sponsor of HB 153, told the committee the course — to be approved by the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council — is intended as a resource so local officers can correctly identify and respond to animal‑cruelty situations. She described the proposal as limited in scope, saying it would require 20 officers statewide — one trooper for each county troop and one sheriff’s office representative per county — “This is a training tool only. It doesn't constitute that they have to do anything,” she said, arguing that small, targeted training could prevent mistakes in investigations.

Supporters from agricultural and animal‑welfare groups also urged the committee to back the bill. Lucy Brown of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau said law enforcement in many rural towns lacks routine livestock‑management experience and that training would help officers distinguish between disease, husbandry practices and neglect. Kurt Ehrenberg of the Humane Society of the United States told the committee some animals currently suffer because callers to local police do not always get an informed response and said the bill is a step toward guaranteeing trained responders.

Law‑enforcement witnesses said they back training but warned the bill, as drafted, raises operational and cost questions. William Wright, sheriff of Belknap County and president of the New Hampshire Sheriffs' Association, said sheriffs and state police already assist local departments when needed and cited statutory duties (he referenced RSA 1045 and RSA 104:6 in testimony) that constrain staffing. He said the association would not oppose a bill focused only on training but objected to language he read as potentially requiring sheriffs or state police to “respond and assist” in investigations in ways that could create unfunded and unclear mandates. Sheriff Wright asked for clearer language about whether assistance would be advisory or would include taking over investigations.

Representatives of the New Hampshire State Police and the Police Standards and Training Council described existing baseline instruction. Matt Amatucci, testifying for the State Police, said the police academy already provides blocks of instruction on animal‑related investigative topics but that no advanced, standardized PSTC course currently exists for animal cruelty. John Skipper, director of New Hampshire Police Standards & Training, said academy recruit training includes a cursory two‑hour block on animal issues and that creating an effective advanced training block would likely require additional resources and rulemaking. He said the Police Standards office could develop curriculum but would want funding or a clear assignment of scope.

Questions from committee members focused on operational detail: how counties would select the designated officers, how the trained officers would be notified to local departments, and whether the change would create an implicit legal duty to take over cases. Representative Scully asked whether the sheriff or a trained person would only give “a quick opinion” while the local agency retained responsibility; Sheriff Wright said the text was ambiguous. Representatives asked whether the cost would be significant; Comteuil and supporters said the bill would impose minimal cost because it requires training for only a small number of officers and could be integrated with existing PSTC offerings.

No motion or vote was taken at the hearing. Committee members and agency witnesses discussed possible amendments that would clarify the scope of required duties, whether training content would be defined in rule, and how any costs would be borne.

Looking ahead, Representative Comteuil said she has an amendment forthcoming to address dissemination of who the trained officers are to local agencies; law‑enforcement witnesses offered to work with the sponsor to refine the language so the bill is limited to training and does not create a mandatory investigative takeover requirement.

Outcome: The bill was heard; no committee vote was taken at the hearing.","Lawmakers heard testimony for HB 153, which would require an eight‑hour animal‑cruelty course plus periodic refreshers for two officers per county and designated state police troopers; supporters called it a modest training mandate, while sheriffs and state police raised operational and staffing concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to require independent harms‑and‑benefits appraisal for landfill permits

Committee hears bill to remove warrant seizure clause tied to unpaid dog‑license fees

Committee hears renewed push to ban cat declawing; veterinarians urge preserving clinical judgment

House committee hears bill to require specialized animal‑cruelty training for 20 law‑enforcement officers