This story was originally produced by the New Hampshire Bulletin, an independent local newsroom that allows NHPR and other outlets to republish its reporting.
With the legislative session well under way, New Hampshire lawmakers haven’t tired of putting forward new proposals for how landfills should be sited and regulated — but finding one a majority can accept has proven difficult.
Tension over the state’s waste has come to a head in recent years, with private waste disposal companies pushing for expanded landfill capacity. Communities living alongside disposal sites have pushed back, often citing instances of pollution and mismanagement that have raised health and environmental concerns.
In February 2025, Gov. Kelly Ayotte requested a new site evaluation committee to consider the siting and impact of new landfills or expansions and a one-year moratorium on new landfill construction. More than a year later, neither measure has materialized, though proposals for those and other new regulations have generated hours of discussion in hearings and debates.
The following bills, all related to the location and approval process for new landfills or expansions, are being workshopped in committees. This session’s new bills, if they advance, will cross over to the other chamber at the end of the month. Here’s a look at where things stand.
Who should have a say in landfill development?
Ideas around a possible site evaluation committee have taken center stage in the landfill debate.
Bills currently in play contend that the factors the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services takes into account in its existing process for reviewing new landfills are insufficient, creating the need for a new body to handle the process.
It’s true that some of the impacts of a landfill fall outside the department’s purview, said Michael Wimsatt, director of the department’s Waste Management Division, in a hearing for Senate Bill 536 Feb. 3.
Each of three site evaluation committee bills currently before the Legislature proposes a seven-member body to evaluate a range of impacts and determine whether to approve applications for a new landfill. However, they differ in who, exactly, is granted a seat at the committee table, and in their stances on what factors should be prioritized in the decision.
All call for the committee to include the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Business and Economic Affairs, the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, an individual who serves on a conservation commission, an individual with expertise in the private waste management industry, and an individual with municipal planning. Each subject matter expert would be appointed by the Governor and Executive Council, according to the bills.
The other two members of the committee vary from bill to bill. House Bill 1189, from prime sponsor and Dover Democratic Rep. Peter Bixby, calls for the chair of the New Hampshire Waste Management Council, which oversees the Waste Management Division of NHDES, to also serve as chair of the site evaluation committee. The seventh member in this proposal is an individual with “expertise or experience in environmental protection, health, or science,” also appointed by the Governor and Executive Council.
Meanwhile, SB 536, from prime sponsor and Littleton Republican Sen. David Rochefort, would also have the Waste Management Council chair serve as chair of the site evaluation committee, and a final member appointed by the governor with experience of any of a broad range of topics from business to waste management facility design or environmental protection.
And an amendment from Loudon Republican Sen. Howard Pearl to House Bill 707, originally sponsored by Rochester Republican Rep. Kelley Potenza, calls for two different individuals to take up the final spots: an individual with expertise in “natural resource protection in the context of large project development” and a member “representative of the business community,” also appointed by the Governor and Executive Council. The amended HB 707 calls for the chair of the site evaluation committee to be the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Business and Economic Affairs.
Beyond the membership of the committees they would charter, the bills also differ in the criteria the committees would be directed to prioritize when evaluating new landfills, such as whether more weight is given to the perceived benefit of increased disposal capacity or the potential harms of a landfill, such as pollution, traffic, and health impacts.
Related provisions in the amendment to HB 707 came to represent the division between the House and Senate on the matter of landfills after Pearl’s replace-all amendment was approved by the Senate in January.
As amended, the bill would establish a preference for applications to expand landfills. But critics said its language would boost New Hampshire’s waste disposal capacity at the expense of local control. According to the bill, local regulations would not be able to prevent a landfill expansion if the site evaluation committee determined the expansion was in the state’s best interest.
In January, Potenza said the amendment was too friendly to the waste industry, while members of the Bethlehem Select Board said they felt targeted by the language. Bethlehem voters have attempted to prevent expansion of the Casella Waste Systems-operated landfill in their town through local regulations.
In an interview March 6, Pearl said his amended HB 707 was being held by the Finance Committee while he and other legislators continued to work over details and differences between the site evaluation committee proposals. He declined to comment on his vision for the relationship between local control and capacity expansion.
“We have a compelling interest, for the state, to make sure that we have good landfill siting, and the management of that, in place,” he said, adding that more housing and population growth would lead to more trash production in the state.
Senate Bill 593, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Avard, a Nashua Republican, would also favor capacity expansion at existing landfills and contends that the goal of increasing capacity should take precedence over local regulation.
At a hearing Feb. 3, members of the landfill advocacy group North Country Alliance for Balanced Change said its language, like the amendment to HB 707, could force a landfill expansion against the will of locals.
The settlement agreement preventing expansion at the landfill in Bethlehem is the only one in the state that could be nullified by such legislation, Wayne Morrison, president of the alliance, said at the hearing.
SB 593 has not yet been acted on by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sen. David Watters, committee member and a Dover Democrat, said Mar. 6 the committee would likely hold their landfill bills until they had a better understanding of the proposals emerging this session from the House.
Finally, House Bill 1622 from Democratic Rep. Linda Haskins, of Exeter, would also establish a preference for landfill expansion, then for landfill siting at an existing contaminated site, over developing a landfill at a “greenfield” or undeveloped location. HB 1622 received support from the full House on Feb. 19 and is now before the House Finance Committee.
Stemming the flow of trash
Other proposals seek to reckon with the origin of the trash deposited in New Hampshire landfills, which has hovered around 40% in recent years, according to NHDES.
House Bill 1138, from prime sponsor and Keene Democratic Rep. Nicholas Germana, would limit the out-of-state waste accepted at existing landfills to 30% by 2030, and subject any future landfill operators to a limit of 15%. Germana said last year he was motivated to preserve New Hampshire’s capacity to dispose of the waste generated in-state.
The bill received support from the full House of Representatives on Thursday, March 5, when it received a recommendation of “ought to pass” on the consent calendar.
Other measures intended to limit the flow of waste into New Hampshire’s landfills are taking effect now, including a new surcharge on solid waste that began on Jan. 1.
But efforts to impose a moratorium on new landfills have stalled; two bills from last year, both of which sought to enact a one-year moratorium, were voted down or sent to interim study by the Senate earlier this legislative session.
Redefining the criteria for landfill siting
Other legislation seeks to reform the existing landfill application process by making changes to the reviews conducted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
House Bill 1478, of which Potenza is prime sponsor, received a 12-1 recommendation of “ought to pass as amended” from the House Committee on Environment and Agriculture on Mar. 3.
The bill seeks to expand the criteria the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services considers when new landfills are proposed for development. The language calls for a new protocol to determine how far a landfill should be set back from water bodies, calling for that measure to change depending on the site’s soil conductivity — a measure that affects how quickly spills travel. The hydrogeologist making that assessment should be independent, according to the bill.
HB 1478 also seeks to make changes to the law defining the work of the department’s Division of Solid Waste Management, requiring it to consider both human health and the environment in future rulemaking proceedings.
Meanwhile, House Bill 215 would also increase the amount of information and analysis landfill applicants must provide to the state with their proposal. It would require NHDES to determine whether the landfill provides a “substantial public benefit,” according to the bill text, evaluating both potential negative impacts to health, property values, tourism, and more, as well as economic gains, increased waste capacity, and any infrastructure improvements associated with the project.
An amended version of HB 215 was referred to the Senate after passing the House in January.
