Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on solid-waste siting bill pits local towns and environmental groups against industry and state proponents
Summary
Senate Bill 5 36 would create a Site Evaluation Committee for large solid-waste facilities and express a state preference for expanding existing landfills; supporters say it provides transparent, regional review of impacts, while opponents warn it would erase municipal agreements, favor large operators and risk constitutional challenge.
Concord — Testimony at a Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on SB 5 36 laid bare a deep split over how New Hampshire should site large solid-waste facilities.
Sen. David Rochefort, prime sponsor, told the committee the bill creates a seven-member site evaluation committee to consider broader community impacts — including noise, odor, traffic and property values — and to establish a state preference for expanding existing, permitted landfill sites or redeveloping brownfields instead of opening greenfield landfills. "The site evaluation committee will consist of seven members from a variety of experiences," Rochefort said, and the bill is intended to provide "a clear, transparent and predictable framework" for decisions affecting local and regional communities.
The Department of Environmental Services recommended approval. Mike Wimsatt, DES waste-management director, said SB 5 36 would let the state evaluate effects that fall outside DES’s typical technical permitting and "provide an important platform for full public participation" on large facilities.
Supporters included the New Hampshire Sierra Club and community groups: "These impacts are real experiences, significant experiences for host and neighboring communities, and they deserve structured consideration," said Catherine Corkery, chapter director of the New Hampshire Sierra Club.
Opponents warned the bill would undercut local control and effectively overturn existing contracts. Speakers from North Country Alliance and town representatives from Bethlehem said the bill’s language could void municipal settlement agreements with private operators (notably Casella) that limit expansions. "If this bill becomes law, the State of New Hampshire will attempt to void a lawful contract entered into between the town of Bethlehem and Casella," said a Bethlehem representative, who urged the committee to "spike" the bill and start over.
Industry and business groups such as the Business & Industry Association argued the bill would add unnecessary regulatory delay, raise disposal and hauling costs, and make New Hampshire less attractive for necessary services. Nate H. Grace (BIA) said adding another review body would likely lengthen permitting time and increase costs that would be passed to businesses and households.
Legal counsel for opponents flagged potential constitutional problems. Amy Manselli (environmental and land law) said the bill could "substantially impair an existing contract" without a demonstrated and necessary state interest and warned of litigation absent strong supporting data on disposal capacity or crisis. Several speakers noted the state’s biannual reports and other filings do not show an imminent statewide disposal crisis through 2037 under current assumptions.
Committee questions touched on membership and balance of the proposed committee, whether PUC staff make sense as administrators of a solid-waste SEC, and technical provisions such as a proposed five-year groundwater travel-time standard for siting new facilities. Some senators suggested refining membership and clarifying that the SEC would complement — not replace — DES’s technical permitting.
No final committee vote on SB 5 36 was recorded. The breadth of testimony makes clear the committee will need to reconcile local-control concerns, potential contract impacts, DES administration and the bill’s scope before moving forward.
