New Hampshire Senate Bill SB379

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/21/21
• Refer: 12/21/21
• Report Pass: 3/9/22
• Report Pass: 3/23/22
• Engrossed: 4/1/22
• Refer: 4/1/22
• Report Pass: 4/13/22
• Refer: 4/21/22
• Report Pass: 4/26/22
• Enrolled: 6/7/22
• Chaptered: 6/22/22
• Passed: 6/22/22

Caption

Establishing the solid waste management fund and grant program.

Impact

If enacted, this legislation will create a solid waste management fund that will be utilized to provide matching grants for projects focused on significantly improving waste management practices. The fund is intended to support activities that might include the development of regional materials recovery facilities and other regional recycling efforts. Further, the bill empowers the Department of Environmental Services to solicit federal funding to bolster the state’s waste management initiatives. However, the precise fiscal impact is currently indeterminable as the bill does not specify an initial appropriation or transfer of funds.

Summary

SB379 is a bill aimed at establishing the New Hampshire Solid Waste Management Fund and a corresponding grant program. Its primary goal is to enhance the management of solid waste and improve waste diversion methods across the state. The bill asserts that solid waste management has become a significant concern and aims to support municipalities, private entities, and businesses in their efforts to reduce waste, including hazardous materials. This initiative reflects a growing recognition of the need for effective waste management solutions to protect the environment and public health.

Contention

While the bill is largely seen as a positive step towards improving waste management, some critics may argue about the effectiveness and implementation strategies of the proposed fund. Notably, the repeal of the existing surcharge on out-of-state waste could lead to ongoing debates regarding waste management responsibilities and the financial implications for local governments. Stakeholders may also express concerns over the administrative overhead tied to the fund's management and how grant allocations will be prioritized among competing projects.