HB1691

Poor people need to have good and sufficient food.

To: House Municipal and County Government Committee From: The Hopkinton Conservation Commission Date: February 10, 2026 Re: HB 1691: relative to limitations and qualifications for land placed in current use. Thank you, Madame Chair and Members of the committee for the opportunity to comment on HB1691. The Hopkinton Conservation Commission opposes this bill and asks that you vote Inexpedient to Legislate. As a member of the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, we share the concerns expressed in their written testimony and add five concerns specific to the town of Hopkinton. 1) If it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it. In 1973, the NH Legislature passed RSA 79-A, declaring it to be “in the public interest to encourage the preservation of open space, thus providing a healthful and attractive outdoor environment for work and recreation of the state's citizens, maintaining the character of the state's landscape, and conserving the land, water, forest, agricultural and wildlife resources.” It was “further declared to be in the public interest to prevent the loss of open space due to property taxation at values incompatible with open space usage.” It was acknowledged that “open space land imposes few if any costs on local government and is therefore an economic benefit to its citizens. The means for encouraging preservation of open space authorized by this chapter is the assessment of land value for property taxation on the basis of current use. It is the intent of this chapter to encourage but not to require management practices on open space lands under current use assessment.” The Current Use Program has been successful in achieving its goals and continues to be a useful tool for open space preservation. In Hopkinton, some of our farms have been owned and managed by the same family for generations. This would not have been possible without current use. Our residents repeatedly list the rural atmosphere and beauty of the landscape as what they love best about our town. This is a product of current use taxation. We don’t see it as broken, so we aren’t convinced it needs to be fixed. 2) HB 1691 undermines municipal self-determination. Each town knows best its land use needs, which are reflected in the Master Plan. Creating the Master Plan is an open process that includes multiple opportunities for public participation in creating a vision for the future. Hopkinton has some iconic farms and forests that shape its character and are always near the top of the list in surveys of what our residents want for the present and future of the town. NH has experienced a massive reduction of farms since the agricultural peak in the 19th century, with over 60,000 acres of farmland lost to development, urbanization and forest succession. This is true for Hopkinton, where almost all land that was not forested was originally in agriculture. Although over 66% of our land is identified as farmland, including USDA prime farmland soils, farmland soils of statewide importance and farmland soils of local importance, we are now down to only 15 farms. Opening this land to development would not result in the highest and best use of these acres, especially considering how much productive agricultural land has already been squandered. 3) HB 1691 takes away individual property rights. In the same way that we support the right of towns to create master plans without predefined restrictions and qualifications, we recognize the right of individual landowners to manage their property without such limits. For example, HB 1691 would eliminate a landowner’s option to participate in current use where the limits on acreage have been maxed out in that zone. Why would we want to say to property owners, “Sorry, no current use for you because we already have the maximum allowed acreage in the program?” This creates a disadvantage for property owners who want to keep their land open but need the current use tax rate to make that possible. 4) A bias against open space? The Hopkinton Conservation Commission is concerned that protecting open space, which by statue has been declared to be a public purpose, is being cited as a barrier to solving the housing crisis. There are numerous reasons why we have a crisis and limiting the amount of land in current use will not address them. Zoning restrictions, for example, are often the primary limitation on a town’s ability to expand its housing options. The Hopkinton Housing Committee has identified many such restrictions and our Planning Board is looking at multiple options to increase housing opportunities. It should be noted that keeping land out of current use doesn’t mean it will automatically be turned into housing developments. Many acres of land in current use are simply not buildable. Wetlands and steep slopes are examples. Most prime agricultural land lies in the floodplain along the Contoocook River. This is also not the place for building housing. 5) HB 1691 would create a burden for towns to implement. The Hopkinton town planner has expressed concerns about this bill. She points to the complicated and subjective formula that would burden our one-person department, our assessors and our property owners. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Hopkinton Conservation Commission joins the NHACC in opposing HB1691 and asks that you vote Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony, Bonnie Christie, on behalf of the Hopkinton Conservation Commission

House Bill 1691 is overly restrictive and subjective, undermining the goals of Current Use, and ultimately reducing the public benefits supported by the Current Use Law.

This bill must be Inexpedient to Legislate, it is tax increase for all taxpayers, infringes on property rights, local control, and threatens the natural resources for our human health and economic vitality.

Current Use is important in keeping NH a pleasant place to live. This bill would gut an important program.

This bill would lead to many conserved lands being sold and developed. Conserved and public lands are essential to the New Hampshire experience including recreational opportunities, and protecting wilderness areas and large tracts of forest for wildlife. Our town exceeds the threshold written into the bill, but the vast public lands is one of the main draws of living where I live. Towns also benefit from Carbon Credit Revenue (from bill passed last year) on these lands and forestry management on these lands. I strongly opposed this bill.

Very bad bill. Please vote ITL.

I strongly oppose this HB. It would drastically undermine the purpose and impact of NH's Current Use Program.

This bill is overly complicated and arbitrary in its definitions that will result in costly and inconsistent application. Current Use in it present form protects NH's natural resources that are critical to our quality of life and economy. This bill also unnecessarily restricts management by landowners. Lastly, this bill misunderstands how limited liability companies and their property are owned and liabilities managed. Thank you very much for voting ITL to protect landowner rights and NH's natural resources.

Current Use Assessment plays a vital role in protecting the state's natural resources and in protecting the land, resources, and view sheds that enable our tourist industry to thrive and which also support our agriculture and forestry industries. Without Current Use Assessment, many farmers and woodland owners would not be able to afford to maintain their properties.

Re: HB 1691 Feb 10 2026 Dear representatives; I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 1691, based on its direct conflict with New Hampshire’s established economic and recreation planning priorities. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is not simply a conservation document, it is an economic development strategy. SCORP explicitly identifies outdoor recreation as a driver of economic growth, supporting tourism, local businesses, workforce retention, and community vitality across New Hampshire. Public access to recreational land is foundational to that strategy. Similarly, NH Rec Ready recognizes outdoor recreation as essential infrastructure, one that fuels visitor spending, supports small and rural communities, and strengthens New Hampshire’s competitiveness as a place to live, work, and invest. Limiting or jeopardizing recreational land access directly undermines these economic objectives. HB 1691 moves New Hampshire in the opposite direction. By increasing barriers to recreational land access or reducing the availability of such land, the bill risks constraining economic activity tied to outdoor recreation—including tourism revenue, outfitter and hospitality businesses, seasonal employment, and the broader recreation economy that benefits communities statewide. Outdoor recreation is a proven economic engine. It attracts visitors, retains residents, supports public health (reducing long-term healthcare costs), and enhances quality of life—factors that are increasingly critical in workforce recruitment and regional economic resilience. Once recreational access is diminished, these economic benefits are difficult, if not impossible, to fully recover. For these reasons, HB 1691 stands in direct opposition to the intent and goals of both SCORP and NH Rec Ready, as well as the substantial public investment New Hampshire has already made in planning for sustainable recreation-based economic growth. I urge you to oppose HB 1691 and instead support policies that protect recreational land access and strengthen New Hampshire’s outdoor recreation economy for the long term. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the people of New Hampshire. Respectfully, Danielle Young Warner NH 03278

Dear Representatives, This bill limiting the acreage that can be considered under 'current use' will be disastrous to both the farming and open recreation lands of New Hampshire. The cascading river of problems this bill will cause will be deep and permanent. Please register my profound opposition to this bill. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Marty Warner, NH

HB 1691 would weaken incentives that keep forests and farmland intact across the state. This bill would undermine the purpose and effectiveness of New Hampshire’s Current Use Program. Current use is a taxing strategy aimed at making it easier for landowners to keep their open space undeveloped. Instead of being taxed at its real estate market value, land is taxed on its income-producing capability. Current use keeps property taxes at a lower, more predictable rate. Current Use is a conservation policy that recognizes the public benefits of private forests and agriculture.

The Lyme Conservation Commission opposes HB 1691. We agree, that it is proper to review the Current Use law to make sure its provisions are being applied equitably and that it is achieving the goals for which it was designed. Revising the statute to correct shortcomings is appropriate. However HB 1691 is overly restrictive. It raises serious concerns about owner private property rights, the ability of local municipalities to manage their own resources and imposes a a system of zone classification that creates a need for oversight that will be burdensome for municipalities and tax appraisers. The benefits to the citizenry of preserving open, natural areas is well established, and New Hampshire's natural resources are an important driver of economic activity such as tourism. Changes to the Current Use law should align with promoting those benefits. HB 1691 does not.

This bill will cause incalculable damage to the working lands of New Hampshire that are now protected by Current Use tax valuation.

The Blake timber farm has been family owned since 1930. The original 54 acre parcel was purchased from the Draper Corporation. In 1945 an additional 165 acres was purchased. In 1988 a 32 acre parcel was purchased, followed by a 1993 annexation of an additional 10 acres. The final 43 acre parcel was purchased in 2007. A conservation easement was donated to Upper Valley Land Trust in 2007. The current 304 acre farm is held under 4 lots. The property is a certified New Hampshire Tree Farm has been professionally managed for 40 years, guided by successive Ten Year Forest Management Plans starting in July 1985. Since that time there have been 14 timber harvests, producing 2 million MBF of lumber with a total net proceeds of $230,000. Harvest income only exceeds operating expenses + taxes approximately once every 4 years. New Hampshire HB 1691 will jeopardize implementation of comprehensive land stewardship and conservation practices. Limiting the total acreage to 40 acres coupled with restricting the benefit to a single Lot will result in disincentive to generate comprehensive land stewardship and conservation programs. A better option would be to encourage landowners to implement stewardship programs covering all contiguous timber/undeveloped land within their property. If the landowner implements state specified stewardship/conservation practices, then Current Use program tax reductions should be applied to all encompassed acreage.

We have very strong concerns regarding this bill. As landowners in the town of Lyme, NH with significant portions of our property being held in current use, we feel the Eligibility Limits by Owner and Parcel, are extremely restrictive and will create an enormous hardship for many landowners, including us. A one lot maximum per owner is overly restrictive, unrealistic and not feasible. A maximum lot restriction of 40 acres is also unduly restrictive and unrealistic. Our land consists of separate lots all acquired over time by our family, and are contiguous to each other. Restrictions as proposed would seem to create an inconsistency in our ability to manage our property as a cohesive unit, creating issues of landlocked property and creating harsh and unfair tax consequences for us and many landowners. We ask, at the very least, that this bill be tabled until such time as the general public has more time to review and understand the impact of this legislation, particularly on small landowners. Respectfully, Marlene and Thomas Green, Lyme, NH

While I am a strong supporter of expanding affordable housing throughout New Hampshire (and in particular in smaller towns such as New London that need housing to attract workers), I am opposed to this bill. Section II negatively impacts the ability of towns to manage current use practices in response to local needs, while also mandating a cap on open spaces in suburban and urban areas of New Hampshire most in need of defending and even expanding open spaces for public use. Additionally, Section IV's compliance mandate appears to be overly broad and could place an undue burden on the already-stretched resources on the NH Division of Forests and Lands. I strongly urge a more measured approach to balancing the need for affordable housing with the need to protect open spaces and limited forest resources. Laurie Schive New London, NH

My wife and I are an elderly couple on fixed income This property has been my wife's home for most of her life including that she grew up here, left for a number of years and then returned to live out our lives here. We do not have the means to handle a huge tax increase. There are other ways to raise the funds needed to work this bill. Please think of all the citizens who will be hurt by this bill and disapprove it. Thank you.

I can't think of a better way to discourage and undermine the rural character that is cherished by so many towns in NH, including Deerfield, than to pass this bill. The cost to an average landowner to navigate its complex requirements would be prohibitive, as well as for municipalities to oversee (assessors don't work for free). I imagine the overly-restrictive requirements will make it simpler for landowners to just sell off their land as local taxes become unaffordable, especially for older residents. Developers, I'm sure, will consider this a win, and the adverse environmental impacts to our communities will be the outcome that 79A was designed to circumvent. Neither should it be considered a mechanism for fixing the "affordable" housing problem (developers are in business to maximize profits). If the State really meant what it said about valuing the preservation of open space in NH when it first enacted this program, then it should not even consider dismantling it with passage of this bill.

HB 1691 would significantly alter New Hampshire’s Current Use Program and undermine the purpose and effectiveness of this long-standing conservation tool. If enacted, HB 1691 would weaken incentives that keep forests and farmland intact across the state.

Please do not upset a program that has been so positive for our state.

I strongly object to HB 1691 as a landowner, a conservationist and as a taxpayer in New Hampshire. As writtenHB 1691: 1. Penalizes farmers in current use by prohibiting the use of fertilizers and pesticides. When used judiciously these products help with production and encourage healthy yields 2. HB 1691 makes it impossible to implement large conservation parcels. Land owners often own more than one parcel of land. Limiting easement to one property per owner is shortsighted. Nonprofits managing many parcels under current use will no longer be able to do so. 3. Finally,HB1691 is an unfunded mandate. Responsibility and funding for implementation has not been delineated. Who will regulate, enforce and ensure compliance with this poorly thought out bill? Please find a way to generate fiscal funds that does not punish land owner and nonprofit conservation entities. Thank you for taking the time to consider this.

The Current Use law is an open space law that has contributed significantly to our quality of life, tourism, and public recreation. Current Use assessment is not a discount - by law it is a fair assessment based on the income producing capability of the land to produce forestry and agricultural crops. The restrictions proposed could force the sale of a significant amount of open space land and greatly reduce the amount of land open for public recreation, including hiking and snowmobile trails. This is especially true for landowners with multiple lots that would be limited to one lot in current use statewide. If a landowner is over the maximum area proposed or municipalities are over the maximum percentages proposed, will the municipality decide who to remove from current use, and likewise, decide who to allow into current use? This would be discriminatory and infringe on private property rights. Pesticide and herbicide use is already regulated by the state and is a management tool often needed to manage insects, diseases and invasive species. Please don't take those tools away on current use land. Clearcutting is also a tool used by foresters and wildlife biologists in forest and wildlife habitat management and should not be regulated through current use. Please vote this bill inexpedient to legislate.

I oppose this bill as it is fraught with issues that will negatively affect the Current Use law and all that have benefited from it (landowners, general public, environment). For example, in my rural town there are many landowners who have large contiguous parcels (i.e. more than one lot) that are currently in current use.