SB134 establishes a new statewide framework to reduce wasted food and support organics recycling, composting, food rescue, and related education and infrastructure. It creates two grant programs in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment: an On-Farm Organics Diversion and Recycling Grant Program and a Wasted Food Reduction and Diversion Grant Program, plus a County Wasted Food Reduction Block Grant Program. Eligible applicants include farmers, urban farmers, urban agricultural producers, local governments, nonprofits, schools, institutions of higher education, businesses, and consortia, with projects focused on reducing food waste, rescuing edible food, composting food residuals, recovering food as animal feed, and expanding related training and technical assistance.
The bill also imposes a $2-per-ton solid waste disposal surcharge on the final disposal of solid waste at refuse disposal systems beginning July 1, 2026, with future adjustments tied to inflation and periodic review. Refuse disposal system operators must collect and remit the surcharge quarterly to the Comptroller, who deposits the revenue into a new Wasted Food Reduction and Diversion Fund. That fund is designated as a special, nonlapsing fund and is used to finance the grant programs, with the remaining money after administrative costs split among the state grant programs and county block grants. The bill also exempts the fund from the general interest-crediting rule that would otherwise send interest earnings to the General Fund.
SB134 would amend the Environment Article, Agriculture Article, and State Finance and Procurement Article to create these new programs and funding mechanisms. It also adds reporting requirements for the Agriculture and Environment departments, including annual reports on grant awards, job creation, waste reduction outcomes, and impacts on farmers, urban farmers, and urban agricultural producers. The bill further requires the Department of the Environment, in consultation with Agriculture, to adopt regulations for the state grant program, including a simple common application and accommodations for applicants with limited resources or language barriers.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a policy and funding initiative with an environmental, agricultural, and community-benefit focus, and it likely appeals to advocates for composting, food recovery, and waste diversion. The main practical concern implied by the bill is the new surcharge on solid waste disposal, which would affect refuse disposal systems, haulers, collectors, and ultimately waste generators through passed-through costs.
The most notable point of contention is likely the new disposal surcharge and how its costs would be distributed through the waste management chain, since the bill authorizes haulers and collectors to recover the charge from customers. Another possible area of debate is the allocation of fund revenues among state and county programs, as well as the bill’s prioritization criteria, which emphasize overburdened and underserved communities, living-wage jobs, and low-contamination compost production. No explicit opposition or support is documented in the provided materials.
The bill would add new provisions to Maryland law creating a dedicated surcharge on solid waste disposal and a new special fund to support wasted food reduction and organics diversion. It would also establish new grant programs in the Agriculture and Environment Articles, require quarterly surcharge remittance by refuse disposal system operators, and direct the Comptroller and State Treasurer to administer and account for the fund. Affected parties include landfills, transfer stations, solid waste processors, haulers, waste generators, farmers, urban agriculture operators, counties, nonprofits, educational institutions, and businesses participating in composting, food rescue, or waste diversion projects.
No committee discussion or voting history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to report. From the bill text, the overall posture appears constructive and programmatic, with an emphasis on environmental sustainability, food waste reduction, and community benefits. The measure is framed as a funding and implementation bill rather than a punitive regulation, though the new disposal surcharge may draw scrutiny from the waste industry and others facing pass-through costs.
The most likely source of contention is the solid waste disposal surcharge, which would raise costs for refuse disposal systems and could be passed on to solid waste generators and customers. Another possible point of debate is whether the surcharge and fund allocations are the best mechanism for financing food waste diversion, especially given the bill’s split between state grant programs and county block grants. Stakeholders focused on waste management costs may be concerned about the economic impact, while environmental and food-rescue advocates are likely to support the new funding stream and grant priorities.