Many, many thanks to all of you who wrote to NH state legislators and attended the NH House committee hearings on Thursday in support of HB 1319 and HB 1422, two bills to limit the negative impact of dumps in the North Country.*
More than 50 people came to the hearings in Concord, including supporters of North Country Alliance for Balanced Change, the Forest Lake Association and Save Forest Lake. One legislator said the House Environment and Agriculture Committee had received more emails in favor of the bills than she’d seen in all her years on the committee.
Ten people offered compelling testimony for the bills, including Forest Lake residents and visitors, environmental activists and representatives of the Conservation Law Foundation and Toxics Action Center. Several committee members seemed sympathetic.
Of course Casella Waste Systems, which wants to site a new 180 acre dump half a mile from the lake, was there too. After hearing much testimony about odors, leaks, landfill scavengers and health concerns at Casella dumps, the Casella rep said at one memorable point that dumps and state parks could be compatible neighbors, and a dump would have no impact on Forest Lake’s water quality — though of course he couldn’t guarantee that. There were no signs of agreement.
You can read the press coverage from New Hampshire Public Radio here. You can read an article from the Caledonian Record on our web page below.
The House Environment and Agriculture Committee will meet in executive session on March 3 to consider how to act on the bills. We’ll let you know as soon as we hear more.
Again, thank you for everything you do for the North Country!
North Country Alliance for Balanced Change
Sarah Doucette, Adam Finkel, Erik Johnson, Claire Lupton, Mary Menzies and Eliot Wessler
* HB 1319 would create a dump-free buffer of at least two miles around NH state parks. HB 1422 would put a two-year moratorium on permits for building or expanding privately-owned for-profit landfills.
North Country:Littleton Rep’s Landfill Bills Amended At Committee Hearing
(Link above to Caledonian Record)
Executive Session On Tuesday Could Determine Their Fate
Two bills seeking tighter restrictions on landfills went to public hearing before the House of Representatives’ Environment and Agriculture Committee on Thursday that drew about 40 people, a good number of them North Country residents who ran up against the waste management industry.
“Both sides were well-prepared and both sides made good points, although I don’t agree with all the points that were made,” state Rep. Elaine French, D-Littleton, the lead sponsor of the two bills, said Friday. “The committee seemed interested and asked some good questions.”
While the catalyst for the legislation is the opposition to a possible Casella Waste Systems landfill beside Forest Lake State Park in Dalton, the bills, if passed, would impact landfills statewide.
As it was initially introduced, House Bill 1319 seeks to prohibit the siting of new landfills or expansions of existing landfills near state parks, national parks, or U.S. Department of Agriculture land.
It sought to amend RSA 149-M, New Hampshire’s solid waste management statute, by prohibiting a state permit for the siting of a new public or private facility or for the expansion of an existing public or private facility that is within one mile of the boundary of any state or national park, or within five miles of the boundary of any land managed by the USDA.
HB 1319 was amended, however, to remove the reference to the USDA and the buffer requirement was changed to two miles.
House Bill 1422 seeks to establish a two-year moratorium — from July 2020 to July 2022 — on the issuing of permits for new landfills or the expansion of existing landfills for the purpose of studying the creating of municipal waste districts, which have been advocated by some residents in the North Country.
HB 1422, amended slightly, seeks to amend RSA 149M:9-a by requiring the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to study and evaluate the feasibility of creating municipal waste districts throughout the state and to continue to identify best practices related to solid waste reduction goals as outlined in the statute.
The two bills are co-sponsored by nearly a dozen state representatives from across the state, and among the local sponsors are state Rep. Troy Merner, R-Lancaster, and state Rep. Kevin Craig, R-Lancaster.
The moratorium bill found a few more people opposed, including the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the buffer bill had mixed support, said French.
Thursday’s hearing drew representatives from Casella, which seeks a 2.3-year expansion at its Bethlehem landfill, an expansion the company said will be the final one in Bethlehem, before it moves to Dalton.
Speaking before the committee on the buffer requirement, Brian Oliver a vice-president of Casella, said, “Casella as a company is not afraid of competition. Competition is good for everybody. But we would expect the state to operate a level playing field. We think that’s fair. And this amendment seems to target a very specific site. So my question is why is it appropriate that a municipal landfill, a state-owned landfill, or a district landfill could be well within two miles and yet a privately owned facility would not be able to be located within two miles? I’m not understanding the rationale there.”
Committee members asked some questions of Oliver, including if he can guarantee that a landfill near Forest Lake would not have an impact on water quality.
Earlier, Oliver said the landfill itself would not have an impact on the water’s quality.
“I can’t guarantee anything, but based on the science, that’s what it would dictate,” he told the committee.
Some don’t feel a landfill and a state park are a good fit, among them, Ellen Hays, of Whitefield, who has said a landfill would negatively impact the quality of life in the area.
“I think that no private corporation has the right to dump trash from all over New England into our state in order to earn money for themselves and their shareholders,” said Hays.
On Tuesday, both bills are scheduled for an executive session, which could determine their fate.
The committee recommendation could be one or both bills ought to pass or one or both would be inexpedient to legislate, or the bills could be put into interim study as an option so their language can be revised and developed, or one or both could be tabled, which means effectively killed.
French remains hopeful the two bills will advance in the legislative process.
