With waste issues piling up, Maine Legislature weighs more oversight of Juniper Ridge
Just over half of Maine's landfill waste ends up in Juniper Ridge, which has an operating contract with a subsidiary of Casella. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2028. (Photo by Claire Sullivan/New Hampshire Bulletin)
As the state's largest landfill nears capacity amid concerns about the environmental impact of possible expansion, two legislators that represent its neighboring communities are seeking greater legislative oversight for the state-owned Juniper Ridge Landfill.
The Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing Monday for a series of bills related to waste management, including two that seek to address and increase oversight of future use of the landfill, which straddles Old Town and Alton. The facility is owned by the state through the Bureau of General Services, which has an operating contract with NEWSME Landfill Operations, a subsidiary of the waste management company Casella.
When Rep. Jim Dill (D-Old Town) knocked on doors before last November's election, one of the biggest complaints he heard from residents was the poor quality of the garbage bags they must purchase to dispose of their trash. That's why LD 1782 would require the operator of a state-owned landfill to provide free disposal of household waste for the local residents.
However, Dill explained that his bill also seeks to address what he described as the 'crisis' of the landfill soon reaching capacity by imposing new fees on the operator and requiring state agencies to develop a solid waste management plan that addresses the issues associated with Juniper Ridge.
The committee also heard bills seeking to increase recycling of construction materials, reduce the volume of solid waste and better manage waste from wastewater treatment plants.
The Departments of Environmental Protection and Administrative and Financial Services opposed Dill's proposal. Since the DEP is already required to submit a waste generation and disposal capacity report in January, the department argued the additional reporting requirements in the bill would be burdensome.
Just over half of Maine's landfill waste ends up in Juniper Ridge, which is expected to reach capacity in 2028. The state has signaled its support for expanding the facility despite objections from environmental advocates, the local community and the Penobscot Nation, whose reservation sits just five miles from the landfill.
The Bureau of General Services has not submitted an application to expand the landfill, but Deputy Commissioner Anya Trundy said during the hearing it intends to. However, the site expansion is separate from an extension of the current 30-year operator agreement that expires in 2034.
Trundy said that building out the landfill to its maximum capacity should allow it to operate until 2040. That is why the expanded capacity would also necessitate extending the contract with Casella so that both line up with the 2040 timeline.
The committee also heard a bill from Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot) that, if passed, would shape the process of extending that contract. While the executive branch has so far handled the negotiations, LD 1349 would require approval from two-thirds of the Legislature for contract or contract renewal to operate Juniper Ridge.
Maine opens door for landfill expansion despite community objections
Though the Department of Administrative and Financial Services would normally advocate for contracts to go out to bid, Trundy said doing so could sever the indemnification clause in the existing contract. Rather than giving Casella a 'sweetheart deal,' Trundy said continuing the agreement holds them accountable to that clause that would leave them responsible for financial and environmental liability down the road.
Committee members also voiced concern that requiring two-thirds support from the Legislature would be insurmountable; however, environmental organizations who testified in support of the bill were open to changing that to a simple majority because they have concerns over Casella's operation of the landfill and welcomed more opportunity for public input.
Maulian Bryant, executive director for the Wabanaki Alliance, spoke in support of LD 1349 over similar dissatisfaction with the landfill's management. She said changes to air and water quality that can be affected by the landfill isn't communicated to neighbors who can often smell the facility from their front yards.
However, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill, saying that it could politicize the contract process and deter companies from doing business with the state.
Tipping put forward another proposal that was heard Monday seeking to address forever chemicals from landfill leachate entering groundwater and surface waters.
The legislation would require entities discharging wastewater to annually report to the DEP the origin, volume and final disposition of solid waste leachate, sometimes referred to as 'trash juice.' It would also prohibit discharging any wastewater containing leachate from a solid waste landfill unless the discharge satisfies department limits to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and require third-party testing of leachate for PFAS.
Last session, the Legislature passed a bill that would have required Casella to treat PFAS in a way that ensures levels don't exceed established drinking water standards, but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills. The DEP later mandated that Casella install a department-approved system for treating landfill leachate for PFAS before expanding operations.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ayotte signs universal EFA bill, parental bill of rights
Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 295 into law at the State House Tuesday. The bills broaden parental rights and expand the voucher-like education freedom account program, respectively. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two pieces of legislation Tuesday, one to extend the education freedom account program to all income levels and another to give families more control over their schools, delivering significant victories to 'school choice' conservatives. Flanked by children in a crowded council chamber room adjacent to her corner office in the State House Tuesday morning, Ayotte signed Senate Bill 295, which would allow families of all income levels to access state funds for private and home schooling expenses, and House Bill 10, which would enumerate a number of requirements for public schools to respond to parental demands. 'No one loves a child more than a parent, and making sure that parents have rights and can understand and know what's happening in their classrooms when their children are in school is so, so important,' Ayotte said. Republicans have hailed the two bills as instrumental to allowing parents the freedom to make choices for their children and avoid mandates from public school districts. But LGBTQ+ advocates have denounced HB 10, which they say could require school employees to disclose information about a students' gender identity or sexual orientation to their parents, even when the student asks the school employee not to. And Democrats and public school supporters say expanding education freedom account will take away state money that should be spent on public schools. HB 10 lays out a number of requirements for public schools, as well as a list of rights that parents have to be informed about regarding what public schools are teaching and what their children are doing during the school day. For instance, the bill lists the rights to opt a student out of sex education courses; choose not to participate in any non-academic survey; receive all educational records for their children within 10 days of asking; review instructional materials, and others. Many of those are already allowed under existing state law. The bill also requires school districts to adopt policies to encourage parental cooperation with teachers over homework, attendance, and discipline. HB 10 also includes the right for parents to 'inquire of the school or school personnel and promptly receive accurate, truthful, and complete disclosure regarding any and all matters related to their minor child, unless an immediate answer cannot be provided when the initial request is made.' That requirement does not apply to information brought to any counselor, school psychologist, school nurse, or other certified health care provider that is 'reasonably expected to be privileged.' The bill allows school staff to withhold information if they have 'clear and convincing' evidence that disclosing it could lead to the child being abused by their parent. And it also allows parents to sue the school if they allege any part of the bill is being violated. SB 295, meanwhile, would remove income caps from the education freedom account program, which allows parents to access at least $4,182 per year in state funding to use toward nonpublic school education expenses. Currently, that program is limited to families making 350% of the federal poverty level or less — or $112,525 for a family of four. SB 295 would impose a 10,000-student cap on the program in the first year of the expansion — the 2025-2026 school year — and would increase that cap by 25% per year if demand for the program hits at least 90% of the previous year's cap. The EFA program had 5,321 students at the start of the 2024-2025 school year under the 350% federal poverty level cap, according to the Department of Education. However, a group of 'priority guideline' students would not be subject to that cap, according to the new law. That would include students already enrolled in an EFA program, siblings of students enrolled in the program, children with disabilities, and students in families making up to 350% of the federal poverty levels. Both bill signings represent the culmination of years of work by conservatives. Efforts in previous years to lift income caps on education freedom accounts were voted down in the Senate, while House Republicans have spent four years attempting and failing to pass a parental bill of rights.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Red herring should be New Hampshire's state fish
Nancy Brennan of Weare (center) and others protest outside of Gov. Kelly Ayotte's bill signing on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (Photo by William Skipworth/New Hampshire Bulletin) I used to like reading 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie' to my daughters when they were little. In fact, my wife and I read it aloud so often back then that we still refer to the title when we set out to do one thing and get distracted by a bunch of side tasks that pop up along the way. We've all been there: You go to throw an empty can into the recycling bin, which is full, and then on your way to empty it your sock catches on that exposed nail you keep meaning to fix, so you head over to grab the hammer but then realize the tool drawer is stuck, and on and on it goes. So, it's a story about getting sidetracked. Gov. Kelly Ayotte and the rest of her party should give it a read. On Tuesday, Ayotte ceremoniously signed two bills that not only don't address any of the state's most pressing problems but actually exacerbate a couple that the party itself created. House Bill 10, establishing a 'parental bill of rights,' is legislation born out of right-wing, QAnon-esque paranoia about public educators collaborating to undermine the well-being of the students they serve and prevent parents from parenting. To understand the depths of this paranoia, consider this statement from Atkinson Republican Rep. Debra DeSimone, chair of the House Children and Family Law Committee, regarding the Senate's version of the parental rights bill: 'If I know that most parents are way more trustworthy than teachers like Pamela Smart, then I will vote to pass this bill as amended.' The absurdity of that statement represents a big part of the Republican problem. Between my first day of school at Londonderry's North Elementary in 1978 and graduation day at Merrimack Valley High School in 1990, I had some great teachers and some not-so-great teachers. I've also had good and bad auto mechanics, doctors, plumbers, barbers, etc. I bet that's true for all of you, and yet none of us (I hope) apply any singular unpleasant experiences definitively across an entire field or industry. But the Republican anti-public-school agenda seems dependent on making people believe, often in opposition to their own broad experiences, that the most notorious of school employees (and, for what it's worth, Smart was a media coordinator, not a teacher) is somehow representative of the profession — and the system — as a whole. The Republican Party is the party of dark fantasies. It is the party of distraction (purposeful and otherwise) and of red herrings. And it is also the party of nostalgia, which makes it all the more baffling that its membership is so intent on ripping apart the seams of the communities they claim to cherish. The second bill signed into law Tuesday, establishing universal eligibility for school vouchers, is a prime example of just how far Republicans have wandered from real public service. New Hampshire has a school funding problem, and we've known this for decades. We know it because of our punishing property taxes and because of the tense nature of our debates over school district budgets. And, we know it because over the past few decades the courts have said so more than once. Democratic governors in recent state history failed again and again to address the problem, but Republicans have truly excelled at making things much, much worse. Every state eventually learns that vouchers don't do what Republicans have long said they would — that is, save money and improve educational outcomes. What vouchers do accomplish, however, is hastening the demise of publicly supported places of learning that have educated generations of Americans and helped forge the communities that give us our collective strength. The attempted destruction of public schools is tragic enough, but the budget constraints aggravated by universal vouchers will ultimately lay waste to a much broader swath of public services. If you want to see that dynamic in action, look no further than the cutting crew now going to work on New Hampshire's budget. As much as I love the goofy, frantic, full-circle plot of 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,' I have to admit that the comparison to Republican policy pursuits in New Hampshire is largely flawed. You see, more than anything the mouse is an innocent victim of its own industriousness. It means well but is led astray by an overwhelming desire to create order amid endless strands of unavoidable chaos. Republicans' inability to avoid getting sidetracked — whether by perverse imaginings about pet-devouring immigrants, or vaccine conspiracies, or presidential robot clones, or sinister teachers — lacks that innocence because it is fully by design. In a country that boasts more than 900 billionaires yet is cutting health care for poor people, Republicans' foundational, centerpiece principle of trickle-down economics is a really, really tough sell right now. So, if the very existence of your party is predicated on passing laws that help wealthy people become wealthier, you're going to have to bundle that colossal dud with some visceral distractions. That's really what's behind all of the trumped-up, misanthropic, right-wing 'issues' that push voters to turn against teachers, scientists, researchers, antiracists, climate activists, and others — anyone whose driving ambition is for greater equality and a reduction, by degrees, in overall human suffering. If you've ever wondered why the GOP seems to jump from one hot-button issue to another, at breakneck speed and in the absence of credible data to support their breathless claims, I hope this helps.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules SWEPT tax constitutional, settling one school funding issue
Supreme Court Justices Patrick Donovan, Gordon MacDonald, and Melissa Countway hear oral arguments in Rand v. State of New Hampshire, on Nov. 13, 2024. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) New Hampshire's Statewide Education Property Tax is equal and uniform and does not violate the New Hampshire Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, in a blow to state taxpayers who had sued the state and alleged unfairness. In a 3-1 decision, the court held that the tax, known as the SWEPT, is administered fairly and evenly by the Department of Revenue Administration, even though wealthier towns might collect more than they need for their schools and keep the excess. 'Accordingly, regarding the 'excess SWEPT' issue, we hold that the SWEPT scheme is constitutional under Part II, Article 5 because it is 'administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform in rate throughout the State,'' wrote Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald in the majority opinion. The SWEPT is a mandatory process in which towns collect property taxes to pay for their schools. Under law, the state sets a goal each year for New Hampshire cities and towns to collect a combined $363 million, and each year the Department of Revenue Administration sets a tax rate per $1,000 of property value that towns must collect. But that statewide tax rate typically results in towns with higher property values collecting far more from the SWEPT than towns with lower property values, and sometimes more than is needed to fund their schools. When the tax was enacted in 1999, those wealthier towns were required to relinquish any excess SWEPT revenues to the state to be redistributed to needier towns through the state's adequacy formula. But in 2011, then-Gov. John Lynch signed a law to allow those towns to keep the excess, after pushback by some communities that considered themselves 'donor towns.' Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Rand v. State, had argued that because the current system allows wealthy towns to collect more in property taxes than they need, and because those towns can use the excess to lower the overall percentage of property taxes paid, the tax is neither equal nor uniform in practice. Residents of towns with lower property values pay much higher local property tax rates as a percentage than those in wealthier towns, plaintiffs said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — who included Natalie LaFlamme as well as John Tobin and Andru Volinsky, two attorneys on the winning side of the landmark Claremont school funding decisions in the 1990s — had brought a motion for 'declaratory judgment' to the Supreme Court. That motion was intended to allow the Supreme Court to rule quickly on the constitutionality of the SWEPT tax before the rest of the case receives a hearing in superior court, in order to lay questions about the SWEPT tax to rest. The court did put the question to rest Tuesday, but not in the plaintiffs' favor. MacDonald held that the SWEPT is administered evenly because the Department of Revenue Administration applies the same flat tax rate each year to all cities and towns, wealthy or poor. Whether those towns keep the excess revenue or not, and whether some towns raise enough to pay for schools or not, does not affect whether the underlying tax is unequal and does not make it unconstitutional, MacDonald wrote. In doing so, MacDonald dismissed evidence from an expert indicating the difference in effective property taxes between towns. 'The plaintiffs do not dispute that under the SWEPT, as administered, taxpayers are actually assessed at a uniform rate. That concludes the constitutional inquiry,' MacDonald wrote. 'The 'effective rates' in the expert's data reflect, at most, an indirect effect of municipalities retaining excess SWEPT revenue, as the statutory scheme permits. Theoretical indirect effects of the scheme on municipalities are not relevant to the analysis under Part II, Article 5.' Associate Justices Melissa Countway and Patrick Donovan concurred with MacDonald. But Senior Associate Justice James Bassett dissented on the question of the constitutionality of SWEPT. Responding to MacDonald, Bassett argued that under SWEPT, taxpayers in poorer towns do face disparities in taxation compared to those in wealthier towns. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in excess SWEPT communities is anything but 'theoretical' or 'indirect': the effective SWEPT rate reduction those taxpayers enjoy is real and direct,' Bassett wrote. 'The impact of the SWEPT scheme on taxpayers in other communities that do not generate excess SWEPT is also real and direct: those taxpayers enjoy no comparable reduction in their effective SWEPT rate.' The fifth associate justice, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, has been on administrative leave from the court since July 2024, pending a criminal case against her for allegedly interfering with the criminal investigation of her husband. The decision overrules parts of an earlier decision by Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff, who ruled in 2023 that the SWEPT was illegal. The ruling does not end the Rand case; it merely answers plaintiffs' attempts to receive a declaratory judgment on SWEPT. The rest of the Rand case alleges that New Hampshire's adequacy formula, which currently gives a minimum of $4,182 per student to public schools that need aid, is far too low to pay for an adequate education and is unconstitutional. The court did not rule on that question Tuesday. But it is currently considering a different school funding case, Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire, in which a number of school districts have also alleged that the adequacy formula is too low to provide an adequate education. Oral arguments in that case, known as the ConVal case, took place at the Supreme Court in December. Ruoff has also ruled that the state's formula is unconstitutionally low. The Supreme Court's expected ruling in the ConVal decision could affect how the rest of the Rand lawsuit plays out in superior court, now that the constitutionality of SWEPT has been affirmed by the high court. In an order sent in October, the court indicated that it is unlikely to overturn the Claremont decisions, in which the Supreme Court established the constitutional requirement that the state of New Hampshire ensure an adequate education. Tuesday's ruling did include a partial victory for plaintiffs. The court held that use of 'negative tax rates,' in which the Department of Revenue Administration allows unincorporated towns that don't have school districts to offset their SWEPT tax with negative rates to effectively raise no SWEPT revenue, is unconstitutional. But the court did not direct the state to stop setting negative tax rates. Instead, it said the process for doing so, and fixing the unconstitutional law, is in the hands of the legislative and executive branches. 'Resolving the constitutional infirmity in the State's practice of setting negative local tax rates is the responsibility of the other co-equal branches of government,' MacDonald wrote.
