HB1440

Testimony Against HB1440 The proposed HB1440, which mandates carbon sequestration program participants to submit detailed management plans, poses significant challenges, particularly for small and marginalized landowners. The micro-level compliance burden on these landowners could effectively exclude them from participation in vital environmental programs. This requirement, while aimed at enhancing ecosystem services, often overlooks the realities faced by those who lack the resources or technical knowledge to navigate the bureaucratic landscape. By imposing such stringent obligations, the bill risks reinforcing existing inequalities, especially for low-income families and tribal lands that may not have the same access to support systems as larger landowners. At the mezzo and macro levels, while there are clear environmental advantages associated with this bill, the unintended consequences on smaller operators cannot be ignored. The benefits to municipalities and broader ecosystem services seem to come at the cost of excluding those who could contribute meaningfully to carbon mitigation efforts. Moreover, the absence of dedicated funding to aid compliance further complicates an already burdensome process, particularly for those least equipped to manage it. The intersectional concerns highlighted by this bill require a reevaluation of its objectives to ensure that environmental protection does not come at the expense of vulnerable landowners. The need for a balanced approach is paramount to truly foster inclusive participation in carbon sequestration efforts.

Dear Chair, Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to House Bill 1440. My name is Philip Lovejoy and I am the president of the Blue Hills Foundation, Inc., a not for profit operating foundation dedicated to land conservation that holds almost 8,000 acres of land in Strafford and abutting towns. We manage this land with an ecology first approach, while also managing the forests for carbon sequestration and for timber for harvest. We also support sustainable agriculture on the land. We engage a variety of professionals, including foresters, ecologists and other scientists in establishing our management plans. Our land is open to the public for passive recreation and hunting. I am opposed to this bill because not only is a major infringement of private property rights, but it will also add unnecessary burdens to landowners who are working hard to conserve land in a state where values are escalating and development pressures are increasing. It inserts government into areas where it should not be, and assumes that landowners cannot balance management strategies for multiple uses. We are an example of how it can be done successfully without state intervention. I also wonder how “best forestry management” practices would be determined when there are many different elements that go into developing an appropriate management plan for different lands and ecosystems across the state. As I understand it there is a commission looking at the tax implications of forest carbon projects and it seems that it would make sense for that commission to do its work before legislating new laws around carbon projects. This proposal is wrong on several levels including land use policy, scientifically, and economically. It is a significant departure from New Hampshire’s laws governing forest management. I am opposed to this bill, and believe the committee should kill it. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to this bill on behalf of the Blue Hills Foundation and as a resident of New Hampshire. Sincerely, Philip W Lovejoy

This bill is just wrong. There is no scientific or engineering material that I have seen that backs the need for this bill. I welcome any input to what problems this bill addresses. This bill is a major infringement of my property rights. While I have no current intention to enroll my property in a carbon sequestration program, I do not believe this is the State of New Hampshire business to mandate plans that need to be submitted to the state, particularly when there is only broadly and ambiguous guidelines such as "The plan shall demonstrate adherence to best forestry practices." and "This component shall identify and address potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat." I walk my property so see what needs to be done. In most cases I do what needs to be done. I know the deer, squirrels, the visiting moose, the rabbits and other fauna that live or visit my property. I do not want or desire to have the state anymore involved that they already are. Is this the best way to spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars per year? We have people living in the streets which seems to me a more urgent problem that could use more resources and will help people.