urging the prohibition of the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding and weather modification, to preserve the atmosphere of New Hampshire.
HR 35 is a House Resolution that urges New Hampshire to prohibit the intentional release or dispersion of polluting emissions into the atmosphere, including activities described as cloud seeding, weather modification, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), and solar radiation modification (SRM). The resolution frames these practices as harmful to human health, safety, the environment, agriculture, wildlife, aviation, state security, and the economy, and states an intent to preserve the state’s atmosphere for peaceful and healthful uses.
The resolution also directs the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services to notify a broad list of federal agencies and research institutions within 30 days of adoption and to post the resolution and related certified letters on the department’s website. The listed recipients include NOAA, NASA, EPA, FAA, USDA, DHS, FEMA, DARPA, NSF, DOE, and several other federal and scientific entities. Although styled as a resolution rather than a statutory bill, it expresses a policy position that no person should engage in the covered geoengineering activities within New Hampshire.
Because HR 35 is a resolution, it does not itself amend the New Hampshire Revised Statutes or create an enforceable regulatory scheme in the way a bill would. Its practical effect is to declare the House’s opposition to geoengineering and related atmospheric interventions, to direct state environmental officials to publicize that position, and to signal a state policy stance toward federal agencies and research organizations. If adopted, it would primarily affect state messaging and intergovernmental relations rather than directly imposing penalties or licensing requirements on private parties.
The available voting history suggests the measure was controversial and did not command clear consensus. On March 5, 2026, the House vote on OTPA passed narrowly, 169-151, indicating substantial support but also significant opposition. A later table motion failed, 153-166, which is consistent with the resolution remaining politically contested. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded votes are the main indicator of sentiment.
The main point of contention is the bill’s premise that weather modification and geoengineering are present or imminent threats that warrant a state prohibition. Supporters appear to view the resolution as a precautionary measure grounded in public health, environmental protection, and state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Opponents likely object to the scientific basis, the breadth of the language, and the lack of a clear regulatory mechanism, especially because the resolution targets a wide range of federal agencies and research bodies and uses sweeping terms such as polluting emissions, geoengineering, SAI, and SRM. The narrow vote suggests disagreement both over the policy merits and over whether a resolution is an appropriate vehicle for the issue.