Citizen in a RepublicNH Bill Briefing
← All bills

HB 1691 · 2026 · House · Municipal and County Government Committee

Tighter rules for current use land

AI-generated

relative to limitations and qualifications for land placed in current use.

Limits current use tax assessment eligibility by parcel size, zoning type, and one-lot-per-owner rules, caps the share of land municipalities may approve for current use by zone, adds land management qualifications, and imposes retroactive tax liability for violations.AI-generated

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 5, 2026
  1. ✓Introduced
  2. ✕House
  3. Senate
  4. Governor
  5. Law

Analysis

This bill restricts eligibility for current use property tax assessment based on parcel size, zoning, and sustainability criteria, and limits municipal approval percentages. This bill also imposes retroactive tax liability for violations.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as introduced. Passages chosen from the operative text.Computed by this site

“No person, entity, shareholder, or member of a limited liability company, shall be eligible to enroll more than one lot of land in current use under this section.”
RSA 79-A:27
“The maximum area within a given lot that is eligible for current use discounted tax assessment shall not exceed 40 acres in semi-rural zones.”
RSA 79-A:27
“In developed, suburban, or high-density zones, no more than 10 acres within a given lot shall be eligible for current use discounted tax assessment, and only if the parcel contains or abuts designated conservation or watershed land.”
RSA 79-A:27
“No land located in high-density zones shall be eligible for current use tax assessment unless the lot is made available for public recreational use pursuant to RSA 79-A:4, II.”
RSA 79-A:27

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Sponsors

Rep. Ellen ReadDPrimeDeputy Ranking Member· Housing

Rep. Jonah WheelerD

Public testimony

496 signed in online · 247 wrote testimony

3% support97% oppose0% neutral

ForCurrent use shifts an unfair tax burden onto other residents

AgainstBill undermines a long-standing, successful conservation program

AI-generatedLeading arguments, summarized by the testimony tool.

Read the arguments

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“Current use may make sense in densely populated areas, but rural towns forests and fields are not going to be developed due to economic reasons.…”
— Hebe Quinton, Lymesupports
“Please pass this reform and begin the process. Perfect should not stand in the way of meaningful progress. The original intent of conservation easements and current use taxation has been distorted in practice.…”
— Niles Donegan, Lymesupports
“I live in Lyme, a town with an outside portion of its land placed into 'current use,' thus, the owners of said land pay lower taxes on said property than others in town who then must pay an outsized portion of taxes in order to support our various budgets.…”
— Lynn McRae, Lymesupports
“We should be doing everything we can to support forests, farms and land conservation..This bill does not do that. Be a legislature that builds things not one that tears down good works.”
— Deborah Twombly, Exeter · Conservationopposes
“In her recent state of the state address, Governor Ayotte cited our natural beauty Along with our natural resources as part of what makes NH special. Our current use law helps make this possible. I strongly oppose any effort to weaken current use guidelines/requirements.”
— Rebecca Oreskes, Milanopposes
“Current Use allows working forests and farms to be sustainable and helps to protect the character and environmental quality of NH.”
— Jeremy Wilson, Dublinopposes

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay
Starting text: Bill as introduced
  • Feb 17, 2026HouseCommittee report· consent calendar: Inexpedient to Legislate17–0
    Overall
    100% yea
  • Mar 5, 2026HouseVoice voteInexpedient to Legislateadopted

Hearings and debates

  • Feb 10, 2026Public hearingHouse Municipal and County Government5:46:14–5:48:362m 22slocated in the stream transcriptPublic Hearing
  • Feb 17, 2026Public hearingHouse Municipal and County Government6:37:59–6:41:493m 50slocated in the stream transcriptCommittee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate; Executive Session
  • Mar 5, 2026Floor debateHouse floorWatchnot located in the transcript — opens the full streamInexpedient to Legislate — adopted, voice vote

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

  1. Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Municipal and County Government HJ 1 P. 31
  2. Feb 10, 2026HousePublic Hearing: 02/10/2026 01:40 pm GP 154
  3. Feb 17, 2026HouseExecutive Session: 02/17/2026 09:00 am GP 154
  4. Feb 17, 2026HouseCommittee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 02/17/2026 (Vote 17-0; CC) HC 9 P. 24
  5. Mar 5, 2026HouseInexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 03/05/2026 HJ 6 P. 31

Coverage

No reporting linked yet.

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.