CONCORD — The state’s Solid Waste Working Group, which bings together businesses, municipalities, legislators, and department personnel, spent a great deal of time at its February 24 meeting discussing the challenges the state faces in implementing trash policies.
Chair Karen Ebel, a Democratic state representative from New London, provided the legislative perspective, countering the general perception that bills that are “retained” are doomed.
A “retained bill” remains in the committee to which it was referred for further work during the first year of the biennium, and must be reported out for a vote by the full House in the first few session days of the second year of the biennium.
Ebel said she views retaining a bill as an advantage, giving committee members a chance to better understand the details of what is proposed.
“I find it’s kind of hard to have sort of an all-encompassing policy discussion because, what happens in the House is you have a bill like the food waste bill or the solid waste management fund bill, those bills and landfill bills go to the Environment and Agriculture Committee. Well, the Environment and Agriculture Committee I would say is really up to speed on those.
“You also have bills that are being introduced that are trying to authorize municipalities to do more directly with their waste. … You have another committee that’s getting these bills that has to do with municipal authorization, and they’re not really up to speed on the wonderful world of solid waste. So in order for them to make a really good decision — I mean, I feel that there should be a lot of education there.”
She cited the example of a bill banning the sale of carpets with toxic chemicals, which has to go before the Commerce Committee. “In the end, they decided to retain that bill,” she said. “But you know, they’re really concerned about businesses and whether or not they can sell products. Some businesses are already withdrawing the PFAS-added products. So it’s a whole different set of considerations that you’re talking about in these committees.”
Bills involving appropriations go before the Finance Committee, which is looking at the numbers rather than the policy, and considering them in relation to the governor’s and the department heads’ budget proposals.
“So the job of the Finance Committee is to filter through all this and figure out what they want to finance and what they don’t,” Ebel said.
She summed up her point by saying, “It’s hard to have some sort of overarching policy and all of us be pulling in kind of one direction when these bills are getting spread out over.”
The group discussed the formation of solid waste districts, allowing municipalities to band together to better manage solid waste. Right now, the Department of Environmental Services has the role of “enforcer” but with better-defined rules that match state policies, there would be less need to take enforcement action.
Municipalities often balk at state edicts, so by encouraging a buy-in from the towns, including financial incentives, it may be possible to achieve the goals set out in the state’s solid waste policy.
New Hampshire lawmakers are reluctant to force anyone to do anything, so when House Bill 300 came before the Environment and Agriculture Committee, it limited the bill’s impact to those within 20 miles of a facility able to handle food scraps. The original bill would have forced entities within 50 miles of a facility authorized to manage food waste to send their scraps there if they produce one or more tons of food waste per week.
“The committee, which I think is just an amazing thing, recommended that this bill pass, 20 to nothing. It was a unanimous vote, and there was no debate the floor, and that bill passed on a voice vote. I heard very few no’s,” Ebel said.
The bill then went to the Finance Committee, which has three divisions. Ebel serves on Division 1, and she said they’re talking about the fiscal note which has about $98,000 for staffing to make the program work.
HB 462 calls for a $2 million appropriation to the solid waste management fund to assist communities with food waste reduction and diversion. The Environment and Agriculture Committee also recommended that bill, 20-0, with an amendment to emphasize composting.
“This is like miraculous,” Ebel said. “We got totally bipartisan co-sponsors on the Senate and the House side, and really enthusiastic [support] about this. Now that bill is passed on a voice vote on the House floor, very few no’s, maybe a few more no’s than the last one because they saw a $2 million price tag, but, anyway, that is now before the Finance Division.”
HB 465 is the bill banning the sale of carpets with PFAS, which by an 18-2 vote was retained for further study.
“If it passes, those folks [on the Commerce Committee] aren’t going to have any kind of recommendations or anything probably until November of this year,” Ebel said, adding, “I don’t know how a robust study can be done in the time limits that they have, so I think we just have to see how that goes.”