On Friday, January 16, 2026, New Hampshire has a real opportunity to move a long-simmering border question out of the realm of vague historical dispute and into the realm of action. HR45—“urging Congress to find that the Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor lie within the state of New Hampshire”—is scheduled for a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. in GP 228, followed by an executive session at 2:00 p.m. before the House Committee on State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs.
The resolution’s supporters will make broad claims about the harbor and river. But if New Hampshire wants to win this in the court of public opinion—and actually deliver relief—the state should be disciplined about the objective.
The only “resolution” worth chasing is a practical one: restore the clear, pre-1970s understanding that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard’s duty-station reality is Portsmouth, New Hampshire. (And yes, it’s called the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard—funny how often that point gets lost.)
This doesn’t need to become a decades-long, all-or-nothing crusade about every contour of tidal waters. It needs to become a focused effort to stop an ongoing and measurable unfairness. [Related – HUYETT: How Maine Stole the Portsmouth Harbor Islands—and How to Take Them Back.]
The measurable unfairness: Maine income tax on New Hampshire households
Citizens Count lays out the basic reality: the shipyard sits on Seavey’s Island and is treated as located in Kittery, Maine, which means employees pay Maine income tax even if they live in New Hampshire. It also notes Maine income tax is applied to household income, meaning spouses can be effectively pulled into the impact as well.
And then there’s the number people feel every year:
Citizens Count estimates Maine earns roughly $5.5 million annually from New Hampshire residents who work at the yard.
That’s not theoretical. That’s money leaving New Hampshire families’ budgets—every single year—because the shipyard is treated as firmly “Maine” for tax purposes.
Why HR45 is back now: because the old “everyone knows what this is” arrangement broke
If you read Ian Huyett’s recent NH Journal pieces, you can feel the exasperation: the argument isn’t just “we have old documents,” it’s “for a very long time, New Hampshire’s control and the region’s practical assumptions were far clearer than what has become today’s posture.”
You don’t have to adopt every flourish in that telling to recognize the underlying political point: when a border question becomes a payroll issue, people should stop tolerating ambiguity.
The Supreme Court obstacle is real—but it isn’t the same thing as public legitimacy
Any honest pro–New Hampshire case has to address New Hampshire v. Maine (2001). The Supreme Court relied on judicial estoppel to block New Hampshire from advancing a “Maine-shore” boundary theory, reasoning that New Hampshire had previously taken—and benefited from—a different position in the earlier boundary litigation. But there’s a serious critique here: that estoppel may not have been applied on the right footing, because the earlier case is often understood as settling the lateral marine boundary (the offshore line) rather than fully adjudicating the inland river/harbor boundary in the way that later tax and jurisdiction consequences have made so consequential.
And that’s exactly why HR45 points toward Congress instead of pretending the fix is as simple as “try the lawsuit again.” Judicial estoppel is, at bottom, a procedural rule about consistency in litigation positions—it can end a case without ever producing the kind of modern, comprehensive merits ruling people expect when real-world taxes and day-to-day governance are on the line.
So the right takeaway isn’t “give up.” It’s: pick the forum and the remedy that can actually work.
The case for a narrow, achievable fix
If New Hampshire wants a strong, credible stance, it should keep coming back to one simple proposition:
Whatever the ultimate boundary theory, Congress and federal policy should treat the shipyard’s duty station as Portsmouth, New Hampshire—and stop allowing New Hampshire residents to be taxed as if their work were unambiguously in Maine.
That’s a remedy ordinary people can understand, and it addresses the concrete harm now—without requiring the state to “win” an unlimited geographic argument in one swing.
January 16 is the moment to make this real
HR45’s hearing and executive session on January 16 are a chance to do something New Hampshire hasn’t done consistently enough on this issue: build a public record that is specific, practical, and aimed at results.
If the goal is to protect New Hampshire taxpayers, then the message should be calm but firm:
- The current arrangement sends about $5.5 million a year out of New Hampshire residents’ pockets.
- The Supreme Court posture limits the litigation path, but not as much as previously thought.
- So the state should pursue the cleanest possible fix for now: restore the shipyard’s practical New Hampshire treatment through immediate federal action.
That’s not a symbolic fight. That’s a taxpayer-protection agenda. And HR45 is clearly the best vehicle on the calendar to start protecting our residents.
Thomas O’Neill is a Merrimack County–based tax accountant and small-business owner who grew up in Rockingham County, where the dispute is centered
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
