Debate over $2-per-ton surcharge: supporters tout grants for food-rescue and composting, industry warns of costs and unintended consequences

House Bill 42 drew one of the lengthiest hearings before the Environment and Transportation Committee. The bill would impose a $2-per-ton solid-waste disposal surcharge to fund three grant programs: wasted-food reduction and diversion (Department of Agriculture lead), on-farm organic diversion and recycling (MDA), and a county wasted-food reduction block grant (MDE).

Vice Chair Regina T. Boyce presented the bill and framed it as a sustainable funding mechanism to expand food-rescue, composting and organics infrastructure. Proponents — including the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (Sophia Jones and Brenda Platt), Compost Crew (Ben Parry), the Maryland Food System Resiliency Council (Dr. Stephanie Lansing) and a range of municipal and community witnesses — argued the surcharge would generate stable funding for schools, farms, nonprofits and counties and cited other states’ examples (New Jersey, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and others).

Proponents said the surcharge (estimated in legislative fiscal materials to generate several million dollars over time) is modest compared with typical tipping fees and would support programs that create jobs, divert organics from landfills and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Ben Parry of Compost Crew said a $2-per-ton fee is a “nominal” addition to typical tipping fees and that schools and small programs urgently need dedicated funding.

Opponents included the National Waste & Recycling Association’s Maryland chapter, local family haulers and major companies (Waste Management, Republic Services). They said the surcharge would increase costs for households, businesses and local governments; some warned it could incentivize illegal dumping or out-of-state disposal and cited administrative complexity for haulers. Several haulers stressed already-high operating costs (truck and tire price increases, rising tipping fees) and questioned whether a $2 fee is the appropriate level. The trade association suggested alternative funding approaches or lower-fee starts.

Committee discussion: Several delegates asked whether the bill would reduce material going to Baltimore’s waste-to-energy incinerator and sought data on potential diversion rates; proponents said roughly 23–30% of municipal waste is food/food residuals and that meaningful diversion could reduce both landfill and incineration tonnages. Prince George’s County representatives said they already operate a curbside-organics program and raised concerns about being penalized; Vice Chair Boyce said she is open to working on solutions for counties that already run programs.

Ending — Outlook: The bill split the hearing between strong, broad-based advocacy from environmental, municipal and food-rescue groups and vigorous opposition from haulers and industry. No committee vote was taken; stakeholders noted potential paths forward that would preserve the program’s funding while addressing administrative and equity concerns.