Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 199, which would extend the statute of limitations for civil actions seeking damages from PFAS contamination from six years to 20 years. The prime sponsor and other supporters argued that PFAS contamination in southern New Hampshire has long-term and often delayed health and property impacts, making the current six-year period too short for victims to discover harm, connect it to exposure, and seek relief. Supporters described contamination in places such as Merrimack and surrounding communities, cited health concerns including cancer, developmental issues, and other illnesses, and said a longer period would better preserve legal rights while still requiring proof of causation. The Department of Environmental Services said it was not taking a position but acknowledged the contamination and ongoing work to address it. The Business and Industry Association opposed the bill, arguing that evidence becomes stale over time, memories and documents fade, and a longer window would make it harder to determine causation when other exposures or intervening factors may be involved. Committee members questioned both sides about causation, the difficulty of proving PFAS-related illness, and whether a 20-year period was necessary if a plaintiff already knows of the injury and its source. Supporters responded that PFAS effects can emerge slowly, that scientific understanding continues to develop, and that current knowledge is still incomplete. Opponents said the existing discovery rule already starts the clock when harm and causal connection are known, and that extending the period would reduce clarity and fairness in litigation. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the hearing on HB 199. The committee then opened House Bill 268 FN, which was described as a technical measure to confirm that the Board of Tax and Land Appeals may hold hearings in its Concord hearing rooms. The sponsor indicated the bill reflects current practice and does not require additional facilities. With only one witness listed and no apparent opposition, the discussion was brief and focused on why the authorization should be placed in statute rather than left to practice.