Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Lab Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Proposal Letting DHHS Set Water-testing Fees by Rule
Summary
Sen. James Gray introduced a department‑requested bill, SB 178, asking lawmakers to let the Department of Health and Human Services set water‑testing laboratory fees by administrative rule rather than by statute.
Sen. James Gray, R-6, opened a hearing Feb. 26 on Senate Bill 178, a department-request measure to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to set laboratory service fees for certain water testing by administrative rule rather than by statute.
The bill’s sponsors and agency witnesses said the change would put water‑testing fees in the same regulatory framework as the rest of the state public‑health laboratory program and make fee-setting more flexible.
“This legislation is department‑requested,” said Feng Shiang Gao, director of the DHHS public‑health laboratory, adding that moving the water‑testing fees into rule would allow the lab to keep pace with testing costs. Gao pointed the committee to RSA 131:3 (Laboratory of Hygiene) and noted the laboratory’s responsibilities under federal regulations for public water enforcement (40 C.F.R. 142).
Abby Rogers, DHHS legislative liaison for the Division of Public Health Services, told the committee that all other public‑health laboratory fees are already set by rule and that regulatory consolidation would help the agency coordinate a planned rules update in 2026.
Agency testimony included production details: DHHS said the water lab tested about 16,590 water samples in 2024, including roughly 2,560 private well samples, and that the water‑lab fees were left in statute when the program moved from the Department of Environmental Services to DHHS.
Gao and Rogers emphasized the bill would not itself set rates — it would only change the legal vehicle by which fees are adjusted, moving that authority to the administrative rule process that includes public notice and review.
Committee members asked a few procedural questions; no votes were taken at the hearing and the committee closed the session after receiving agency testimony.
Ending: The committee will consider SB 178 in its upcoming mark‑up schedule. If the committee advances the bill, the department would propose specific rule language and fiscal impacts during the rulemaking and budget processes.
