NH SCIENCE FOR CITIZENS
  • Home
  • About us
  • Legislation
    • Reusable bags
  • Emerging Issues
    • Air quality
    • Water quality

The Conversation

New Hampshire House Bill 1797

2/22/2018

4 Comments

 
By Christopher Klem

Despite recently failing to pass in the New Hampshire House vote, HB 1797 is an important piece of legislation that requires more recognition and attention from the state government. The act of this bill would add a 50% charge to the costs of an environmental contamination, cleanup, and remediation. This would deter all current New Hampshire industries from being negligent about their environmental waste and pose a warning to all companies trying to set up their business here that the state is serious about environmental contamination. And in the event that any of these companies pollute in such a manner, the state fund will receive a generous amount of money in return, helping New Hampshire as a whole.
I believe this bill did not pass in its current form because law makers are worried this would deter new industries from coming to the state while simultaneously pushing other industries out the door. But this bill cannot be thought about strictly under the circumstances of money and business. It needs to be seen about through the eyes of protecting the natural landscape of New Hampshire for years to come. While revenue is the number one priority of the government, they should not continue to accept a steady revenue of money from companies that are destroying the natural beauty that the state has to offer. In the long term, this bill would do much more good than harm to the whole state of New Hampshire and its people.
This bill will go back to the committee and New Hampshire House again next year but must be altered in order for it to pass on to the senate. The alterations to this bill do not have to be drastic, but unfortunately, the changes must come to the large charge that Representative McConnell had initially placed on environmental cleanup and remediation. While I do support the 50% charge originally proposed by McConnell, I do believe this is the main reason the bill was not passed. The Representative from Cheshire and his sponsors for the bill must work closely with the state agencies over the next year to find a percent charge that is more realistic and gives the bill a greater chance to pass through the House. However, I do believe that in order for the bill to maintain its effectiveness when it is eventually passed into law, the additional charges to environmental contamination and cleanup can be no smaller than 25%. In an ideal situation, the percent charge will be somewhere around 35, or even 40%. That way the bill will still deter polluting companies from entering the state while providing the incentive for current industries to be more environmentally sound to avoid the additional charges.
This bill is a huge step forward for protecting the state of New Hampshire and its environment and should be seen as a call for other states to adopt similar policies. If New Hampshire does not allow these polluting industries to operate on their land, then neighboring states will look to establish similar laws to keep the companies that refuse to operate in New Hampshire from coming to their state and polluting. While this bill has a long way to go before ever becoming law, or even passing through the House, I believe that small changes to the large charge will be made to convince other law makers to see the benefits over the potential costs. If and when this bill passes, it will be a great step forward in protecting the New Hampshire environment for generations to come and set an example for other states to do the same.
4 Comments
Emma Coffey
2/25/2018 11:08:36 am

Great ideas. I agree that the 50% additional charge is a little high for law makers to consider it, reducing this could be what gets the bill passed!

Reply
Alex Gosselin
2/27/2018 12:32:19 pm

I completely agree with what this response is trying to provide. Changing the penalty charge could help the bill get passed and could help companies that have accidents in their system. I think trying to figure the penalty percentage could help bill 1797 get passed and will help the economic growth in NH as well. We can't make companies go out of business but we do have to create a penalty that catches their eye and makes them understand that they can't keep polluting the land. This response is very agreeable in my eyes and provides intelligent thoughts on how the bill could get passed.

Reply
Michael Chipman
2/27/2018 04:23:32 pm

Nice job CJ. I agree with what you are saying about the government needing revenue and larger companies being scared to come to NH to do business because of McConnell's bill. I also noted in my paper that 50% was a bit too much for the bill to be passed.

Reply
Jake Anderson
3/5/2018 05:23:21 pm

I agree with you that the penalty percentage needs to be changed. I personally would like to see some sort of progressive charge based on knowledge of contamination. Efforts to prevent it etc... As well as size of the company, possibly like OSHA does with the small employer discounts on fines

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

NH Science for Citizens
Department of Environmental Studies
Keene State College
Keene, NH 03431
A project of students and faculty at Keene State College in collaboration with local NH state representatives.
Photo used under Creative Commons from boellstiftung
  • Home
  • About us
  • Legislation
    • Reusable bags
  • Emerging Issues
    • Air quality
    • Water quality