Subcommittee backs priority for landfill expansions and brownfield reuse in draft HB1622

Representative Gruber outlined a phased amendment to HB1622 that would steer future landfill capacity toward expansions at or adjacent to existing permitted solid waste landfills before permitting new greenfield sites. He said the first, lower‑cost phase would require DEES to assess capacity at the six currently permitted operational landfills to determine whether they could meet New Hampshire’s needs for a set planning horizon, suggesting 50 years of capacity for waste generated in-state as one potential threshold. “The general court further declares that it prefers that any new landfill capacity be developed at or near existing solid waste landfills subject to all applicable siting criteria prior to the siting and permitting of landfills in virgin or undisturbed areas,” Gruber said, reading draft language into the record.

Committee members supported the hierarchy — favoring expansions, then brownfield redevelopment, and only after those options are exhausted considering greenfield sites — but raised practical concerns. Representative Scully and others warned that counting on a current operator’s promise to expand can be unreliable if the owner chooses not to proceed, and pointed to developer liability and local opposition as barriers to forcing brownfield redevelopment.

Mike Whimsad, director of the DEES Waste Management Division, told the subcommittee the proposed statutory preference would give the agency a basis to consider those goals in the public‑benefit determination under RSA 149‑M. He said DEES could perform a GIS‑based screening (using setbacks from waters and airports, conservation lands, lot size, floodplains and source‑water protection areas) that would substantially reduce the number of candidate sites from the hundreds currently on the books. “If you layer that over the whole state and take all those out … you’d very likely come right down to a pretty small number of landfills that are still potentially developable,” Whimsad said.

Members directed Representatives Germana, Patenza and Gruber to craft amendment language reflecting the agreed priority hierarchy and to work with the director on a practicable plan for an initial DEES screening and subsequent steps. The amendments remove an earlier “poison‑pill” clause that would have required applicants to prove no listed site was suitable — members said that requirement was unworkable and could block needed development.

Next steps: the subcommittee will circulate revised language after DEES and sponsors negotiate technical details including the definition of a capacity threshold, the scope of the GIS screening and who pays for more intensive follow‑up work.