CT House Passes Bill to Fix Tire Disposal Program

Connecticut’s tire disposal system has been broken for decades. Wednesday, the state moved to fix it.

The Connecticut House voted 124-21 to require tire retailers to join the state’s tire stewardship program, a mandatory enrollment that closes a loophole critics say has let shop owners pocket disposal fees without actually disposing of anything. House Bill 5157 sets a deadline of July 1, 2027 for retailers to sign up. The Senate hasn’t acted yet.

State Rep. Joe Gresko, a Democrat from Stratford, has been pushing this for a while. He’s blunt about why it’s necessary.

“It’s been the Wild West out there,” said Gresko. “You could pay $5 a tire, you could pay $20 a tire.”

That’s not hyperbole. Anyone who’s bought tires in Fairfield County knows the drill: the shop quotes you some fee at the end, you pay it, and you have absolutely no idea where your old tires end up. That chaos traces back to 1997, when Connecticut stopped monitoring how tire disposal fees were collected and spent. Nothing replaced that oversight for more than two decades.

Connecticut, like most states, bans tire disposal in landfills. So when retailers don’t handle tires properly, they don’t disappear quietly. They surface in storm drains, vacant lots, and roadsides. That problem hits Bridgeport and New Haven hardest, cities where illegal dumping already strains municipal resources.

The 2023 legislation that created the stewardship program tried to solve this. Tire manufacturers fund the whole operation, building costs into the price of new tires so consumers don’t face a separate disposal fee when they bring the old ones in. Residents can drop off used tires for free at participating locations, including certain transfer stations. The program launched earlier this year in four towns.

Here’s the gap: most worn tires don’t go to transfer stations. They go back to the shop where you bought the new set. And not a single Connecticut retailer has voluntarily joined the program, even though the 2023 law gave them the option to do so. House Bill 5157 makes participation mandatory by 2027, rather than optional indefinitely.

Retailers have objected to being pulled into a manufacturer-run system. Their existing disposal arrangements, often funded through those per-tire fees Gresko described, would conflict with the stewardship model. That’s a real concern, not just lobbying noise.

The bill still attracted support from environmental advocates who’ve watched Connecticut’s patchwork enforcement fail for years. Sarah Schofield of the CT Mirror covered the House debate and quoted supporters on both sides.

“This legislation fills a key gap in Connecticut’s tire stewardship program by bringing retailers into a system designed to manage end-of-life tires responsibly,” Schofield said.

Supporters also argued retailer involvement isn’t just about accountability. It’s about making the system usable for the people it’s supposed to serve.

“Retailer participation will strengthen the program already in place, making it easier for residents to recycle tires while supporting cleaner communities across the state.”

The 124-21 vote isn’t close by any standard. That margin in 2026 suggests the appetite for the status quo has finally run out, even among lawmakers who’d previously been cautious about mandating business participation in environmental programs.

Gresko said negotiations with retailers broke down during the last legislative session but that the industry eventually came around, at least partially, before the House voted. He’s confident the Senate will follow.

“It’s going to happen,” Barbaro said.

The math on illegal dumping makes that confidence understandable. Scrap tires are expensive to handle legitimately and essentially free to dump. When the disposal fee is collected at the point of sale instead of at drop-off, that calculus changes. No hidden charge waiting at the end, no incentive to find a ditch instead of a drop-off site.

Whether retailers actually comply by the July 1, 2027 deadline is a separate question. Enforcement mechanisms matter, and the Senate will need to address how the state plans to monitor compliance, something Connecticut demonstrably failed to do after 1997.

The Senate’s calendar for the remainder of the 2026 session is tight.