HB123

Please vote ITL on HB123 and allow landowners to choose how they can make income off their property.

Both HB 123 and the non-germane amendment have serious problems. The amendment would penalize almost any landowner that has used public funds for forest improvement, any grant provided by LCHIP for a conservation easement, etc.

The amendment extends its reach to include “any land put into trust which receives any public money from the state.” This provision would restrict certain private lands, such as family trusts, that receive state funding. Since the phrase “receives any public money from the state” lacks specificity, it would apply to family trust properties that have obtained grants from agencies like the N.H. Department of Forests and Lands, N.H. Fish and Game, or the N.H. Department of Agriculture. This includes funding for invasive species control, endangered species habitat conservation, right-of-way purchases, or easements. As a result, these lands would be ineligible to participate in a forest-carbon-credit program. Forest-carbon-credit sales are a property right, and I oppose any prohibition restricting private landowners from engaging in such programs.

HB123 undermines our efforts to develop sustainable forestry, It may prevent landowners from enrolling their forested lands in carbon sequestration programs. It is a benefit to all to provide incentives to landowners of forested land to keep them forested. Taxing standing timber will result in less forested land, which will have a negative impact of the environment, which in turn will have an economic impact on business such as tourism that NH relies on. This new tax will make it harder for landowners of forested land to keep it forested. We all benefit from our forested lands; this bill will result in more logging and more development as owners of forested land are unable or unwilling to pay taxes on their standing timber.

Dear Members of the Committee, There are very few landowners statewide currently enrolled in carbon credit programs. The only major economic impact the Department is aware of is occurring in Coos County. The Department understands why Coos county is interested in finding an in-lieu tax for land enrolled in carbon credit programs. However, our concern is that language in this bill could have wider implications on woodlands across the state. If land enrolled in carbon programs will be taxed the same as regular land, it may provide incentive to prevent landowners from enrolling their lands, resulting in lower greenhouse gas benefits. Alternatively, there may be landowners that don’t currently have merchantable wood on their land and want to enroll in the program to gain some economic benefit from owning it, aside from development. The in lieu tax may be a deterrent to enrolling. Such landowners may just as well decide to sell their land if they can’t reap any economic benefit from it which may result in more development, a loss of habitat, and higher greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons the Department is opposed to HB123. Respectfully, Dan Bergeron Wildlife Division Chief NH Fish and Game Department 11 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301

Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional for a public school district to send taxpayer funds to a private religious school. Should my local district enter into a contract like this, I would strongly consider a legal challenge. Thank you.

I oppose this bill and do not believe that any landowner should be taxed on their still standing trees. This type of legislation would allow a logging company or individual that wants these trees to push for this tax to financially force someone to cut their trees. This is New Hampshire - live free or die is our motto- we should not be forced to change our property in order to avoid paying taxes. This will not only financially hurt New Hampshire residents but will be detrimental to the environment by removing wildlife areas. Removing wildlife areas will hurt animal populations and hinder the revenue received from the hunting and fishing trade.