Oklahoma's Governor Just Vetoed Human Composting. The "Disposal Freedom" Fight Is Just Getting Started.

When Oklahoma state representatives Marcus McEntire and Tammy Townley filed House Bill 3660 in early 2026, they called it the "Burial Freedom Act." The bill was straightforward by legislative standards. It would have added natural organic reduction, commonly known as human composting, to the list of legal disposition methods in Oklahoma. Traditional burial, cremation, and alkaline hydrolysis were already on the list.

The bill passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives. It passed the Oklahoma Senate. It landed on the desk of Governor Kevin Stitt, a second-term Republican who had never before vetoed a deathcare-related bill.

Stitt vetoed it.

The stated reasons were practical: concerns about regulatory oversight, environmental questions, and whether Oklahoma's existing funeral regulatory apparatus could handle a new disposition method. But behind the veto is a bigger fight. Who controls what happens to your body after you die? How much does the traditional funeral industry stand to lose from new alternatives? And are state legislatures making these decisions based on science, or based on lobbying pressure from the industry that profits from the status quo?

What Is Natural Organic Reduction?

Natural organic reduction, or NOR, converts human remains into nutrient-rich soil over 30 to 60 days. The body goes into a specially designed vessel with organic materials like wood chips, straw, and alfalfa. Over several weeks, microbial activity breaks down the organic matter, including the body, into a cubic yard of soil amendment. Families can use it for planting, scatter it on conservation land, or take it home in urns.

The science is not controversial. Katrina Spade, a Washington-based architect and researcher, developed the process in collaboration with Dr. Lynne Carpenter-Boggs, a soil scientist at Washington State University. Research published in peer-reviewed journals confirmed that the resulting soil is safe, nutrient-dense, and free of pathogens when the process is properly managed. The heat generated during decomposition, sustained temperatures above 131 degrees F (55 degrees C), destroys bacteria, viruses, and pharmaceutical residues. It meets the same safety standards the EPA applies to composting of other organic materials.

The result is roughly one cubic yard of soil. Enough to fill the bed of a pickup truck. Families receive it in containers and can use it to plant trees, enrich gardens, or scatter it on designated conservation land. Several NOR facilities have partnered with land trusts and conservation organizations to offer scattering grounds.

The first legal NOR facility in the United States, Recompose, opened in suburban Seattle in December 2020. The company had waitlisted over 1,200 people before its doors opened. By 2026, Recompose has served thousands of families and expanded to additional locations. Competitors including Return Home (also in Washington), Earth Funeral (operating in multiple states), and Going Home (Florida) have followed. A growing network of licensed facilities now operates across the country, but only in states where NOR has been explicitly legalized.

How We Got Here: The State-by-State Patchwork

Washington became the first state to legalize NOR in 2019, when Governor Jay Inslee signed SB 5001 into law. Colorado followed in 2021 with a unanimous vote in both chambers, a bipartisan consensus that is increasingly rare in state legislatures. Oregon passed its law the same year.

Then the pace accelerated. Between 2022 and mid-2026, a wave of states added NOR to their legal disposition options: Vermont, California, New York, Nevada, Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and Maine. As of June 2026, 14 states have explicitly legalized the practice, and bills are pending in several more.

NOR legalization has been bipartisan. In deep-blue states like California and New York, it passed as part of broader environmental and consumer-choice legislation. In deep-red states like Arizona and Virginia, it was framed as personal liberty and deregulation: the government should not tell you what you can and cannot do with your own remains. In Illinois, it passed with support from both environmental groups and free-market conservatives who saw it as a pro-business opportunity.

Which makes Oklahoma's veto stand out. Oklahoma is a reliably Republican state with a Republican trifecta (governor and both legislative chambers). Arizona also has Republican legislative control, and it legalized NOR without controversy. Virginia's Republican governor signed its NOR bill. Red states do legalize NOR. Many already have. What made Oklahoma different?

What the Bill Actually Said

HB 3660 was a short, targeted bill. It would have amended Oklahoma's deathcare statutes to add natural organic reduction as an authorized method of final disposition alongside earth burial, entombment, cremation, and removal from the state. The bill directed the Oklahoma Funeral Board to develop rules governing NOR facilities, including licensing requirements, operational standards, and health and safety protocols.

The bill did not mandate NOR. It did not fund NOR facilities. It did not require any funeral home to offer it. It gave Oklahoma residents the legal right to choose it, and gave the state's existing regulatory body the authority to oversee it.

The bill's sponsors framed it as consumer choice and economic development. Oklahoma families who wanted NOR had to transport their loved ones' remains out of state, to Colorado or Arizona or another legal state, at significant cost and logistical complexity. Allowing NOR in Oklahoma would keep that economic activity in-state and give residents the same options available in a growing majority of the country.

The House passed HB 3660. The Senate passed HB 3660. By the time it reached the governor's desk, it had cleared every legislative hurdle.

The Veto

Governor Stitt's veto message raised several concerns. He questioned whether the Oklahoma Funeral Board was prepared to regulate a new disposition method. He referenced environmental questions: whether the resulting soil was truly safe, and whether the process could pose risks to groundwater or public health. He noted that Oklahoma had limited regulatory resources and suggested the state should focus on enforcing existing rules before adding new ones.

These are not unreasonable concerns on their face. But every other state that legalized NOR considered the same concerns and resolved them. Washington's law required two years of peer-reviewed research at Washington State University before the first facility could open. Every state that has legalized NOR has paired the authorization with a rulemaking process that establishes specific operational standards, temperature monitoring requirements, and testing protocols.

The environmental concern is notable because it echoes talking points promoted by traditional funeral industry trade groups. The National Funeral Directors Association has not opposed NOR nationally and has taken a neutral stance. But state-level funeral directors' associations in several states have lobbied against NOR bills, frequently raising questions about environmental safety and regulatory readiness.

In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Funeral Directors Association registered opposition to HB 3660 during the legislative process, arguing that the state needed more time to study the process and its implications. No specific scientific studies were cited in the opposition testimony. The association's executive director did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The Economics of Disposal Freedom

The cost of dying in America has been rising for decades, and Oklahoma is no exception. The National Funeral Directors Association's most recent survey put the median cost of a traditional funeral with viewing and burial at approximately $7,848 nationally. That figure does not include cemetery costs, headstones, or plot fees, which can add another $2,000 to $10,000 or more depending on the market. In Oklahoma, where costs run slightly below the national average, a traditional funeral with burial typically costs between $5,000 and $7,500 all-in.

Cremation is cheaper. A direct cremation in Oklahoma, with no viewing, no ceremony, and no casket, typically costs between $700 and $1,500. But cremation has its own environmental footprint. Each cremation releases an estimated 190 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, along with trace amounts of mercury from dental fillings and other particulate matter.

Natural organic reduction falls between the two. Current NOR providers charge between $2,500 and $4,000 for the complete process, which includes transportation, the reduction itself, return of the soil to the family, and any required documentation. It costs more than direct cremation but significantly less than a traditional funeral. It also avoids the environmental impact of both cremation (carbon emissions) and burial (formaldehyde-based embalming fluids, land use, concrete vaults, steel caskets).

For the traditional funeral industry, this price positioning is a threat. Not because NOR will replace burial tomorrow, but because it occupies the same psychological space as cremation did 30 years ago. A cheaper, simpler alternative that growing numbers of consumers find appealing.

The funeral industry has seen this before. In 2015, the U.S. cremation rate surpassed the burial rate for the first time. By 2026, it has reached 62 percent, and in some states it exceeds 80 percent. That shift gutted the traditional funeral home's revenue model, which depended on casket sales, embalming fees, and facility rentals for viewings. NOR is the next phase of that disruption: a disposition method that is cheaper than burial and carries a powerful environmental and philosophical appeal.

Who Lobbies Against Your Disposal Options

The deathcare industry spends significant money on state-level lobbying, and funeral directors' associations are among the most active trade groups in state capitols. Their lobbying rarely makes headlines, but it shapes the regulatory landscape in ways that directly affect what options are available to consumers.

In state after state, the pattern repeats. When NOR legislation is introduced, local funeral directors' associations raise concerns about environmental safety, regulatory complexity, and consumer protection. These concerns are usually expressed in general terms, without citing specific scientific research or evidence of harm. The lobbying is often paired with arguments that the state should "study the issue further," a classic delay tactic that keeps the status quo in place for another legislative cycle.

This is not unique to NOR. The same pattern played out with alkaline hydrolysis (aquamation) over the past decade. In several states, funeral industry trade groups lobbied against aquamation legalization, raising questions about whether the process was "dignified" and whether the resulting liquid byproduct was safe. In every state where aquamation has been legalized and properly regulated, those concerns proved unfounded.

The lobbying is understandable from the industry's perspective. Traditional funeral homes have invested heavily in infrastructure: embalming rooms, casket showrooms, viewing chapels. That infrastructure becomes less necessary as consumers shift toward simpler, cheaper disposition methods. Every new alternative is a competitive threat. But framing that economic anxiety as a consumer safety issue is a different matter.

Oklahoma's Specific Context

Oklahoma is a state where the traditional funeral industry holds particular cultural and political weight. It is a predominantly Christian state with deep ties to burial traditions. The state's funeral directors are often prominent community figures. The people you call at 2 a.m. when someone dies. The family that has run the local funeral home for three generations.

There is genuine cultural resistance to new disposition methods in communities where "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is understood literally. For many Oklahomans, the idea of turning a loved one's body into soil feels unfamiliar at best and sacrilegious at worst. That discomfort is real and deserves respect. It is not the role of journalism to tell people how to mourn.

But discomfort is not a basis for law. The bill did not require anyone to choose NOR. It gave them the option. And the growing number of Oklahomans who have expressed interest in NOR, according to Recompose, which has received inquiries from Oklahoma residents since its founding, suggests there is a constituency for this choice even in a state where traditional burial is culturally dominant.

Oklahoma also has a strong libertarian streak in its politics. A rhetorical commitment to personal freedom and limited government runs through both parties in the state. The contradiction between that political philosophy and a veto that removes a personal choice from residents has not been lost on NOR advocates.

What Happens Next

The Oklahoma legislature has the option to override Stitt's veto. A veto override in Oklahoma requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That is a high bar, but not impossible, especially for a bill that already passed both chambers. NOR advocates in the state have signaled they will push for an override vote before the end of the legislative session.

If the override fails, the bill's sponsors have indicated they will reintroduce similar legislation in the next session. The political momentum behind NOR is growing, not diminishing. Every state that legalizes it makes the next state's passage easier, because regulators and legislators can point to a track record of safe, well-regulated facilities operating without incident.

Nationally, the trajectory is clear. The cremation rate will keep rising. Traditional burial will keep declining. Alternative disposition methods like NOR, aquamation, and green burial will continue gaining market share as consumers seek options that fit their environmental values, their budgets, or both. The question is how quickly each state adapts.

For Oklahoma, the question is more specific. Will the state be a leader in offering its residents new choices, or will it be one of the last holdouts, forcing its own residents to cross state lines for a service that is increasingly available across the country?

Fourteen states have legalized NOR. Oklahoma now has a choice: join them, or watch its residents spend their deathcare dollars in Colorado and Arizona.

*Sources: Oklahoma Legislature HB 3660 text and legislative history, 2026; Governor Kevin Stitt veto message, 2026; Recompose operational data and waitlist figures, 2020 to 2026; Washington State University NOR research publications (Carpenter-Boggs et al.); National Funeral Directors Association General Price List survey, 2025; CANA (Cremation Association of North America) annual statistics, 2025; Cremation Association of North America projection data; Earth Funeral and Return Home public pricing data, 2026; Oklahoma Funeral Directors Association legislative testimony, 2026; Green Burial Council; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences data on cremation emissions.*