Many state legislatures also will look at climate change legislation. Some might try to join or emulate the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a coalition of 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states developing a regional strategy for controlling carbon dioxide emissions. Others will look at California's landmark climate change law, AB 32. In that state, the Recycling and Waste Management Subgroup of the governor's Climate Action Team is working on implementation recommendations for state recyclers and solid waste managers. Interestingly, the group recently changed its name from the “Landfill Subgroup.” Undoubtedly, other states will take action in their own direction, determined to move forward in the face of inaction at the federal level.

Solid Waste

About 10 percent of solid waste generated in this country crosses a state line to reach its disposal point. These shipments can be highly unpopular politically, largely due to concerns over increased truck traffic and to a feeling that the locality is being “dumped on” with out-of-state waste. However, the passion stirred by the interstate issue seems to have subsided. Even the number of bills introduced into Congress is lower than in previous sessions.

This issue, however, has an international dimension because of the use of Michigan landfills by Canadian cities and businesses. Michigan politicians find it easy to campaign against Canadian trash. In 2007, they persuaded the U.S. House to pass a bill allowing states to limit or stop imports of Canadian waste. As of press time, the Senate has not acted on that bill. Because Canadian trash shipments are declining, and the House bill would violate free trade agreements, the Senate is not likely to seriously consider the legislation.

Taxes on landfill tipping fees were another big issue last year. Legislatures in three states — North Carolina, Wisconsin and New Jersey (again acting in early 2008) — either started or increased state trash taxes.

Tax advocates insist the levies are needed to pay for recycling programs or to limit the flow of out-of-state trash. Opponents say that the taxes fail to limit out-of-state trash and, in spite of promises that they will be used to fund recycling programs, often are diverted into the state's general fund. Wisconsin, for instance, split the additional tax revenue between recycling and other “green” programs. Because of concerns that they would have to cut services or raise other taxes to pay for them, cities and counties often are the most vocal opponents of tipping fee taxes and have successfully blocked them in several states. Given the economic pressures caused by declining state tax revenues, new trash taxes are unlikely in 2008.

A loophole in federal law allows railroads to operate waste transfer stations at railyards without state or local oversight. As a result, several of these unpermitted facilities have been built, much to the consternation of state governments, local officials and the private solid waste industry. A northeastern coalition of these groups won some relief when Congress voted to prevent the federal agency that oversees the railroad industry from spending money in 2008 to approve the operation of the facilities. The coalition hopes that Congress will pass legislation this year requiring these facilities to be fully permitted by state environmental agencies. If Congress does not require state permits for these facilities, it is likely to again extend the financial prohibition on the federal agency.

Conclusion

States and the federal government will grapple with a host of other issues that affect trash and recyclables. These will include how long a commercial vehicle driver can operate a truck in a work day — an important consideration given that most recyclables are trucked long distances to end markets — and extending tax credits for trucks, including recycling and refuse vehicles, that use alternative fuels. Other issues likely to spark lawmaker debate are requirements for recycled content in new products, changes to state solid waste regulations (each state goes through this process every five years or so) and tax credits for landfill gas. One thing is certain: As in previous years, state and federal legislators will consider garbage and recycling laws. It's our job, as citizens and as an industry, to ensure that these become good laws, not junk legislation.

Chaz Miller is the state programs director for the National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington. He lobbies Congress and state legislatures on behalf of the solid waste industry.

Waste Legislation Primer

In the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), Congress made it clear that solid waste and recycling are local issues. Unlike other environmental statutes, RCRA does not give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expansive national authority. While the federal government can enact solid waste and recycling laws, it prefers to leave them to state and local governments.

When solid waste and recycling bills are introduced at the federal level, they are first sent to committees with authority over RCRA. In the Senate, such bills are sent to the Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and its Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. In the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and its Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Al Wynn, D-Md., are the primary recipients of solid waste and recycling legislation.
— Chaz Miller