Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Flow Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces RS32161 to permit county flow control and require studies before private waste contracts
Summary
RS32161, presented by Representative Pickett, would give counties a framework to preserve public investments in solid-waste infrastructure, require comprehensive studies before allowing private entities to handle county waste where counties are not in a solid waste district, and increase transparency on waste flows.
The House Local Government Committee introduced RS32161, a measure from Representative Pickett intended to give counties additional authority and transparency to protect long-term public investments in solid-waste infrastructure.
Representative Pickett said the legislation “establishes a framework whereby counties who have made long term investments with taxpayer dollars can ensure that they have the ability to recoup those investments.” He cited a 35-year-old example in which a county identified a parcel that met strict technical standards for a solid-waste facility and said counties are the statutory backstop for solid-waste responsibility.
Under the proposal, counties that are not part of a solid-waste district and that face proposals from private operators to handle waste would be required to complete a comprehensive study before approving private handling. Pickett said the study would have to identify stranded assets and unrecoverable investments, analyze county liabilities, verify that waste would not be sent to a noncompliant facility, and include regulatory and environmental assessments. He said the burden to demonstrate necessity would rest with the county, not a private entity seeking the contract.
Representative Kaler moved to introduce RS32161 and asked whether the fiscal note included a ballpark estimate of the study cost; Pickett said he would try to produce an estimate before the full hearing and that the study would not require a full NEPA-level analysis. Representative Birch thanked the sponsor for a broad fiscal note and pressed on what the bill meant by “reduce counties' liabilities.” Pickett said the proposal would reduce potential liabilities by reducing the likelihood of incidents through county flow control and oversight, but it would not eliminate liability in the event of an incident.
The committee approved introduction by voice vote; no roll-call tally is recorded in the transcript. Sponsors said further detail, including cost estimates for the mandated studies, will be provided at the full hearing.
