Tennessee House Bill HB1724

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/22/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 1-3-105; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 13, Chapter 7; Title 43; Title 68 and Title 69, relative to waste from waste water facilities.

Summary

HB1724 would change Tennessee law governing the land application of sludge from wastewater treatment or processing facilities. The bill allows counties, municipalities, and metropolitan governments to authorize sludge application on agricultural land within their jurisdictions by adopting a resolution approved by a two-thirds vote of the local legislative body. If a local government opts in, it may also establish a tipping fee on each ton of sludge applied, with the fee collected by the facility operator and remitted to the local government. The bill limits how any tipping-fee revenue may be used: it must be spent only on constructing and maintaining wastewater treatment or processing facilities in the jurisdiction receiving the fee. It also adds a statewide restriction that, beginning July 1, 2026, sludge may not be applied to agricultural land unless the land is in a jurisdiction that has approved the practice under the bill or the applicator is operating under a valid permit. The commissioner is prohibited from issuing or renewing permits for sludge application to agricultural land unless the land is in an approved jurisdiction.

Impact

HB1724 would amend provisions in Titles 5, 6, 7, and 69 of the Tennessee Code to create a local-option framework for sludge application on agricultural land and to tie that authority to fee collection and permitting rules. It would not broadly authorize counties or municipalities to regulate normal agricultural activities, but it would carve out a specific exception for wastewater sludge application in jurisdictions that adopt the required resolution. The bill also affects state permitting authority by restricting future permits for sludge application unless the receiving land is in an approved jurisdiction, thereby narrowing where this practice may occur statewide.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a regulatory and revenue mechanism rather than a broad policy expansion, suggesting a technical local-governance approach. The absence of recorded legislative discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the bill’s formal structure.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerns local control versus statewide restrictions on the land application of wastewater sludge. Supporters may favor the bill because it gives counties, municipalities, and metro governments a way to permit the practice and generate dedicated revenue for wastewater infrastructure. Opponents may object to the environmental, public health, or agricultural impacts of sludge application, as well as to the bill’s requirement that permits be denied unless a jurisdiction has opted in. Another likely issue is whether the tipping fee and local approval process could create uneven rules across the state.