By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD – A bill heard Wednesday that would require property owners enrolled in carbon sequestration programs to submit management plans to the state’s Division of Forest and Lands and Fish and Game was called overreaching and an infringement on property rights.

Many who testified before the Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, said the bill is premature, as the state is still studying the issue and a report will not be completed until November 2027. There is also a two-year moratorium on new carbon projects in the state.

State Rep. Mike Ouellet, R-Colebrook, sponsor of HB 1440, said there is public interest and safety to keep in mind, adding that with carbon sequestration, there may be concerns over increasing the risk of forest fires.

Jasen Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, opposes the bill and said it would change the dynamic of owning forest lands in the state and add bureaucracy. He said he worries it might lead to people selling off their land and converting its use.

“This crosses a bright line when it comes to private property rights,” Stock said. “This would add to costs, and changes in the land will occur. We see 1440 applying pressure in the wrong direction. We don’t want to see them slipping out of the timber basket.”

Stock said the state has regulations in place to protect soil and water, reasonable taxes, forester licensing and best management practices, adding that surrounding states have added more regulation with negative outcomes.

“We trust our landowners to make the right decisions,” Stock said. The bill would create “a terrible, slippery slope,” he added, and would be an affront to private property rights.

One representative asked why there was no revenue part to the bill, and Ouellet answered that “it is a work in progress,” and there would likely be a combination of landowners and the state to pay for it.

Dan Bergeron of the Fish and Game Department also spoke in opposition to the bill, saying it is an unfunded mandate.

Among the dozen people who spoke were Tom and Ginny Chrisenton, who own the 700-acre Lyndeborough High Ridge Tree Farm. They said they have made management decisions with their forester for over 50 years, and the bill would take management away from them if they decided to consider a carbon contract. Ginny Chrisenton said they just paid their forester to update a mandated plan for the farm.

Jeff Coombs of Sandwich, a licensed forester who owns 12,000 acres that is enrolled in a carbon program, said he has extensive management plans and there is no need for a new set of regulations.

“We see this as an infringement of our property right,” Coombs said. “Seems like it is a lot of overreach, and really no reason, and added expense.”

Chris Fife, public affairs manager for Weyerhaeuser, which owns 24,000 acres in the state – none of which is in carbon sequestration – said the bill is unnecessary and would harm landowners.

Tom Thomson of the Thomson Family Tree Farm, which owns 2,400 acres in Orford and Wentworth, opposes the bill as well. He said the family property has been long-owned and open to the public for recreation. The bill would take away property rights, he said, and it would be more like the rules in Massachusetts.

One of the reasons New Hampshire is a good place to own land is that the state does not regulate how private land is managed, Thomson said.

The state has received benefits from timber taxes paid on the cuts that have been made, he also noted.

Scott Rineer of Errol also opposed the bill. He is a licensed forester and said it would establish the state’s first forest practices act, although it would be one subset of the forest owners limited to those enrolled in carbon capture. He said the bill would take away an informal process to discuss land with the state and formalize it.

“Why would we need an added layer of bureaucracy,” Rineer asked. He also asked the legislature to allow the study committee to do its work.

Nick Krakoff, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, also opposes the bill. “This bill is simply unnecessary,” he said.

Matt Leahy of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, which owns 66,000 acres, also opposed the bill. He said the organization views carbon sequestration as one more way for property owners to get value from their land.

Leahy added that the society believes the most critical threat is conversion of the forests into permanent uses. If the state makes it harder to own and manage land, that is an added concern, he said.

Jim O’Brien, deputy state director of the Nature Conservancy, opposes the bill and said forest carbon markets are one tool in the toolbox for landowners to maintain their property.