HB42 establishes a new state framework to reduce wasted food and divert organic material from disposal. It creates three grant programs: an On-Farm Organics Diversion and Recycling Grant Program in the Department of Agriculture, a Wasted Food Reduction and Diversion Grant Program in the Department of the Environment, and a County Wasted Food Reduction Block Grant Program. These programs are intended to support infrastructure, education, technical assistance, composting, food rescue, edible food redistribution, and related efforts that reduce the amount of food sent to disposal facilities.
The bill also creates a new solid waste disposal surcharge of $2 per ton on the final disposal of solid waste at refuse disposal systems beginning July 1, 2026, with future adjustments tied to inflation. Revenue from the surcharge is deposited into a special, nonlapsing Wasted Food Reduction and Diversion Fund, which finances the grant programs. The bill requires quarterly reporting by disposal system operators, authorizes administrative costs up to specified caps, and exempts the fund from the usual rule that net interest on special funds goes to the General Fund. It also allows the Governor to transfer up to $3 million in specified fiscal years from the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund to each of the three programs.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it adds new sections to both the Agriculture and Environment Articles, creates a dedicated funding stream, and changes State Finance and Procurement law to protect the new fund’s interest earnings. It also defines eligibility, project priorities, reporting requirements, and administrative responsibilities for state agencies and counties. Affected parties include farmers, urban farmers, urban agricultural producers, nonprofits, businesses, local governments, schools, higher education institutions, county governments, refuse disposal operators, and solid waste generators.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable. It received a favorable committee report with amendments and passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 121-14. The broad vote suggests substantial support for the bill’s waste-reduction, composting, and food-rescue goals, as well as for the grant-based approach to implementation.
The main points of contention likely center on the new disposal surcharge and the administrative burden it creates for refuse disposal systems and haulers, since those costs may be passed through to generators and customers. There may also be debate over the use of surcharge revenue, the allocation formula among the three programs, and the extent to which the bill directs funds toward community priorities, overburdened and underserved communities, and composting standards. The bill’s requirement that eligible entities choose between the agriculture and environment grant programs in the same calendar year may also limit flexibility for some applicants.
HB42 amends the Agriculture, Environment, and State Finance and Procurement Articles to create new grant programs and a dedicated special fund for wasted food reduction and organics diversion. It imposes a per-ton surcharge on final solid waste disposal, requires quarterly remittance and reporting by refuse disposal system operators, and directs the Comptroller to deposit the proceeds into the new fund. The bill also exempts the fund from the general interest-crediting rule, establishes administrative and distribution rules for fund spending, and authorizes limited transfers from the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund to support the programs in specified fiscal years.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall. The House committee reported it favorably with amendments, and the House passed it on third reading with 121 yeas and 14 nays, indicating strong bipartisan or at least broad majority support. The voting pattern suggests general agreement with the policy goal of reducing food waste and expanding composting and food rescue infrastructure, even if some members had reservations.
Likely areas of disagreement include the new solid waste disposal surcharge, which may raise costs for disposal operators, haulers, businesses, and ultimately consumers. There may also be concern about the complexity of administering three separate grant programs, the reporting and compliance obligations placed on refuse disposal systems, and the bill’s restrictions preventing an entity from receiving both the agriculture and environment grants in the same calendar year. Additional debate may involve whether the funding priorities and community-benefit criteria are sufficiently targeted, and whether the bill’s use of the Maryland Strategic Energy Investment Fund is appropriate.