At its meeting on October 16, 1998, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (Committee) voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(a), to enter a preliminary objection to Final Proposal 98-118 containing proposed rules Env-Ws 1500 of the Department of Environmental Services (Department) relative to groundwater discharge and registration. The Department responded by letter dated November 25, 1998.

At its meeting on January 22, 1999, a representative of the Department requested that the Committee enter a revised objection to the rules pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(c). The Committee acceded to the request and so voted. The Department responded to the revised objection by letter dated February 17, 1999.

At its meeting on February 19, 1999, the Committee voted, pursuant to RSA 541-A:13, V(d), to enter a final objection to Final Proposal 98-118. The final objection has been filed with the Director of the Office of Legislative Services for publication in the New Hampshire Rulemaking Register. The effect of a final objection is stated in RSA 541-A:13, VI:

The following summarizes the bases for the Committee’s final objection:

The Committee objected that Env-Ws 1510.01 violates Committee rules 401.04 and 403.01(d) by being beyond the authority of the Commissioner to the extent that Env-Ws 1510.01 conflicts with Part 1, Article 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution, and by being contrary to the public interest by not being clear and understandable.

Pt. 1, Art. 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that:

Env-Ws 1501.11 addresses compliance with Env-Ws 1500 by political subdivisions. Paragraph (b) provides that political subdivisions are, pursuant to Art. 28-a, exempt from compliance with certain requirements in Env-Ws 1500. However, (b)(4) provides that a political subdivision shall not be exempt if the requirement "implements a federal statute or regulation with which the political subdivision would otherwise be required to comply by the federal government." The Committee noted that this language appears to be consistent with RSA 541-A:26, which is relative to administration of federal mandates. Similarly, the Department argued that when administering a federal mandate, the state was only acting as the agent of the federal government, and therefore such action does not constitute "state" action.

The Committee noted that Art. 28-a is a prohibition against state action that results in increased costs for compliance by political subdivisions. The Committee observed that when administering a federal mandate, a state agency uses a state rulemaking process and is subject to state legislative oversight. Further, if the state agency seeks to enforce the provisions of the state administrative rules, it does so in a state administrative process governed by state administrative rules, is empowered to collect state administrative fines to be deposited in the state’s coffers, and any appeals to be taken from such state administrative actions are taken to state courts. Finally, the Committee noted that there is nothing in Art. 28-a that indicates that unfunded mandates that are federally-driven should be treated any differently than any other unfunded mandate.

Paragraph (a) in Env-Ws 1510.01 sets forth a purpose statement, a recommendation, and a limitation on the effect of paragraph (b). The limitation states that "regardless of any exemption(s) from specific requirements of these rules pursuant to paragraph (b) below, all entities that engage in the activities regulated by these rules remain fully responsible for complying with all applicable statutes, such as those which prohibit the discharge of pollutants to groundwater."

The Committee indicated that it was troubled by the language that seemed to override the exemption provided for in paragraph (b), since the provisions in (b)(1)-(3) largely reflect the substance of Art. 28-a. The Committee concluded that, consistent with Art. 28-a, unless any of the statements in (b)(1)-(3) were true, the political subdivision would be exempt from compliance with any new, modified, or expanded program or responsibility. Therefore, the Committee determined that there was no authority to override the constitutionally-based exemption stated in subparagraphs (b)(1)-(3).

The Committee also indicated that it was not certain what was intended by the phrase "fully responsible" in this context. In the Committee’s view, this language could be read to mean that the Department intends to bring enforcement actions against political subdivisions even for violation of statutes that are not applicable to such political subdivisions by operation of Art. 28-a. In testimony before the Committee, the Department’s representative indicated that this sentence was intended to be a "gentle reminder" that political subdivisions violate statutory provisions at their own peril.

Putting aside the issue of whether it was appropriate for the Department to make such a statement in its rules, the Committee determined that the explanation did not seem to be consistent with the language of the provision. The Committee noted that Env-Ws 1510.01(a) requires compliance with all applicable statutes, including those which were enacted after November 28, 1984, the effective date of Art. 28-a. The statutory chapters that these rules were intended to implement were recodified and amended extensively effective January 1, 1990, more than 5 years after Art. 28-a became effective. In addition, over the last 9 years there have been various amendments made to specific provisions of such statutes. In the Committee’s view there would have been no reason to include the language from paragraph (a) quoted above unless it was specifically intended to apply to such statutes. Thus, the Committee determined that the language was more than a "gentle reminder" and was, in fact, a statement indicating the Department’s intent to enforce statutes and rules without regard to Art. 28-a.