Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Landfill Siting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate committee advances bill to protect Big South Fork river segment from landfills after industry testimony

Senate Energy, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Chairman Yeager’s measure would designate a Scott County segment of the Big South Fork as a scenic river and prohibit future landfills in the county; the National Waste and Recycling Association opposed using the Scenic Rivers Act to block landfill siting. The committee voted to move the bill to the calendar.

The committee heard contrasting views on SB 2172, which would use the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Act to designate a Big South Fork River segment in Scott County and prohibit new landfills in the county. Katie Evans of the National Waste and Recycling Association told the committee the Scenic Rivers Act was not intended to be used to bar landfill siting and said Tennessee already has local tools—zoning, the Jackson law, and regional solid‑waste boards—to manage facility siting.

"We respectfully ask a no vote on this legislation," Evans told senators, arguing that the Scenic Rivers Act could be weaponized to block necessary waste infrastructure and that current engineering and permitting standards protect water and air quality. Chairman Yeager and supporters said the bill responds to a proposed 700‑acre landfill in Scott County and noted unanimous local opposition; Yeager emphasized that permit history and timing mean the Jackson law could not be used to prevent the proposal.

After discussion about economic and environmental impacts, the committee adopted the amendment and voted to move the bill to the calendar (recorded vote: nine ayes). Supporters argued the designation would protect tourism and drinking-water headwaters; opponents warned of restricting waste‑management options and urged alternate local approaches.