New Hampshire lawmakers agree on pausing new landfills, but the debate over how long that break should last is heating up. Proposals range from a one-year pause backed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte to a longer halt until 2030 or even 2031, as suggested by the state legislature. The coming months will determine which version gains traction.
A Standoff Over Timeframes
Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who took office last month, wants a short-term solution. Her budget proposal includes a one-year moratorium on new landfills along with a site evaluation committee to study landfill placement rules. That’s a cautious approach, but some lawmakers argue it doesn’t go far enough.
In contrast, the New Hampshire Senate is pushing for an extended pause until 2031, while the House favors a moratorium lasting until 2030. However, House lawmakers have signaled they may shorten their proposed timeframe as discussions continue.
With competing proposals on the table, the core issue remains: How long should New Hampshire pause landfill development to reassess its regulations?
The Push for Stronger Landfill Oversight
Supporters of a longer moratorium argue it’s necessary to prevent poorly located landfills from moving forward under current regulations. Critics of existing rules claim they allow landfills almost anywhere in the state, risking environmental damage and public health concerns.
One case fueling the debate is the controversial Casella Waste Systems landfill proposed near a pristine North Country lake. Opponents argue that without a significant pause, similar projects could gain approval before stronger policies are in place.
Wayne Morrison, president of the North Country Alliance for Balanced Change, has been vocal about the need for better solid waste policies. “The state isn’t in the landfill business, or at least doesn’t want to be,” he said, emphasizing that stricter landfill regulations are long overdue.
Business Concerns and Economic Implications
Not everyone is on board with a lengthy pause. Some lawmakers and business groups worry about economic fallout. Sen. Kevin Avard, a Nashua Republican and chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, warned that halting new landfill projects could discourage businesses from investing in New Hampshire.
Natch Greyes, vice president of public policy for the Business & Industry Association, echoed those concerns. He argued that restricting landfill development could lead to higher waste disposal costs, which might eventually be passed down to businesses and consumers. However, advocates of the moratorium counter that New Hampshire has enough landfill capacity to avoid exporting waste out of state.
Out-of-State Trash: A Lingering Issue
A significant portion of the landfill debate stems from New Hampshire’s role as a dumping ground for neighboring states. According to state data, roughly half of the trash disposed of in New Hampshire each year originates from outside the state. This reality frustrates environmental advocates, who argue that looser waste policies have turned New Hampshire into a go-to destination for out-of-state garbage.
The landfill pause, supporters argue, would allow lawmakers time to reassess whether the state should continue accommodating so much external waste. Others contend that tightening landfill policies could make New Hampshire less attractive for out-of-state dumping without causing major disruptions to local waste management.
What Comes Next?
With multiple proposals on the table, lawmakers will need to find common ground in the coming months. Ayotte’s one-year proposal is the shortest of the bunch, while the House and Senate continue debating between a 2030 or 2031 end date for the moratorium. The final decision will depend on balancing environmental concerns with economic realities.
For now, the landfill debate remains unresolved. But one thing is clear: New Hampshire’s approach to waste management is under the microscope like never before.
Comments