| |
Good afternoon, I am Steven E. Chester, Director of the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality. The Department is Michigan's environmental regulatory
agency, responsible for the air, water quality, wetlands, waste management, and
environmental cleanup programs.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity today to discuss
legislation that would be effective for managing the interstate transfer of
solid waste. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in the matter of
Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources et
al. (1992 Fort Gratiot decision), that provisions of Michigan's Solid Waste
Management Act, which allowed counties to impose restrictions on the importation
of solid waste from other states and countries through their Solid Waste
Management Plans, violated the United States Constitution and were not
enforceable. The United States Constitution's Commerce Clause reserves to the
United States Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states and
with foreign countries. The Courts have long recognized the so-called
"dormant" nature of the Commerce Clause as prohibiting states from
such areas of regulation unless authorized by Congress. As a result, while
movement of waste between Michigan counties is still regulated by state law, we
are unable to restrict imports of solid waste from outside of Michigan.
On April 2, 2003, the Governors of six states, including Governor Jennifer M.
Granholm of Michigan, wrote to Chairman Gillmor requesting an expeditious markup
of H.R. 1730 sponsored by Representative James C. Greenwood (R-PA). That bill
would provide state and local governments with the tools needed to reasonably
limit the amount of out-of-state and international waste that crosses their
borders, maintain disposal capacity for their own waste, and assure protection
of the states' natural resources. The basis of the request from the Governors is
clear: Congress has had this issue before it for over ten years and the states
desperately need action. A bill sponsored by Representative Richard Boucher
(D-VA) in 1994 (H.R. 4779) would have provided the necessary state authority,
but was stalled by the opposition of a single Senator. While a committee hearing
was held in 2001, no markup was initiated, and the states are still left
wanting.
The three bills subject to today's hearing each would help Michigan and other
states gain control of municipal solid waste imports. In addition to H.R. 1730,
H.R. 382, introduced by Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) would give states
authority to limit waste from outside the United States. H.R. 411, introduced by
Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) would require the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the notice and consent
provisions of the bilateral Agreement Between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste. When Governor Granholm wrote to former EPA Administrator
Christine T. Whitman asking that the bilateral agreement be enforced, the EPA
replied that it 'hopes to seek' notice and consent authority under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). H.R. 411 would end the wait using existing
authority to give state and local governments needed tools to reclaim control
over waste imports.
Michigan has paid a price for the 10 years we have been waiting for the
authority to fully manage disposal of solid waste within our borders. Solid
waste import data has been collected by the Department on a fiscal year basis
since 1996. Data from these reports indicate an increase in the level of imports
over the last seven years. Based on data collected there has been an overall
increase of 26 percent in the amount of solid waste being generated in Michigan.
However, the amount of waste from other states being disposed of in Michigan
rose by 61 percent during this period. The amount of waste from Canada being
disposed of in Michigan rose by 149 percent.
Waste from other states and Canada is approximately 20 percent of the total
solid waste disposed of annually in Michigan. This is up from 13 percent just
seven years ago. At this rate imports equate to 25 percent of the waste Michigan
residents generate, meaning that Michigan will lose one full year of landfill
capacity every four years. Total out-of-state imports of waste into Michigan
landfills rose to 11,494,443 cubic yards in fiscal year 2002, up from 6,349,695
cubic yards in fiscal year 1999, an increase of 81 percent. The largest
individual source of waste imports is now Canada, with total reported fiscal
year 2002 imports to Michigan landfills of 6,607,856 cubic yards, up 4,265,065
cubic yards, or 182 percent, from fiscal year 1999.
The increase of waste importation has had a real effect on the citizens and
environment of Michigan. On average, 125-150 trash trucks from Toronto and about
30 trash trucks from other municipalities in Canada now travel Michigan roads
each day heading for a Michigan landfill to dispose of Canadian waste. The
trucks increase the danger to Michigan citizens traveling those roadways,
advance wear and tear on Michigan roads, and emit increased air pollutants
Michigan citizens breathe.
Beside the immediate effect of increased truck traffic, the volume of waste
being imported to Michigan will have a long term effect on our land resources.
As stated, imported waste is consuming Michigan landfill capacity at a rate that
will require us to site new landfills 20% earlier than would otherwise be the
case. This means that Michigan will have to consume more valuable open space to
site new landfills than we otherwise would. And every new landfill increases the
potential for groundwater contamination, the loss of precious drinking water
supplies, and brings with it long term monitoring and maintenance costs.
Ironically, Michigan is currently in the process of having potentially liable
parties identified to address releases that have resulted from the improper
closure of the Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill. Canadian firms and out of state
firms have been identified on this list and are currently in the process of
being pursued to remediate these releases under state law.
But for Michigan citizens, it is the more immediate effect of imported waste
that matters. To them, the number of trucks idling at the landfill gate waiting
their turn to dump their waste means more noise, more odors, and more disruption
of their lives. These are people who don't understand why, if they have been
responsible in accepting neighborhood landfill for disposal of their own waste,
people in other states and countries don't do the same. These are people who
have a hard time justifying the inconveniences of recycling paper, plastic,
bottles and cans to save landfill space, if it is just going to be used up by
folks in other states and countries. And these are people who are asking-and
asking with increasing fervor-why their elected state representatives and the
agency officials appointed to assist them, cannot address their concerns.
This message has been heard in Michigan. There are currently forty-one bills
pending in the Michigan Legislature to address various aspects of solid waste
importation. However, many of them present significant issues of questionable
legal authority given the restrictions of the Commerce Clause.
And that is what we are asking of you: The clear authority to adequately and
comprehensively manage our need for environmentally sound solid waste disposal.
Importantly, this does not mean we need the authority to button up our borders
and exclude all imported waste. What it does mean is having the ability to
consider the costs and benefits associated with waste disposal, no matter the
source, and to control waste volumes, no matter the source, in the best
interests of the local community and the state as a whole. What it does mean is
the ability to plan for our long term disposal needs with certainty. And to
those citizens growing increasingly impatient with their government, it means
getting a say over the quality of their life.
In the late 1980's Michigan was in the forefront of efforts to meet long term
solid waste disposal needs. While various components of those efforts dealt with
diversion of materials away for waste disposal, a central core was the ability
to look ahead, make difficult choices, and provide disposal capacity. With the
bills before you today, we look once again to regaining that opportunity to
undertake such efforts. H.R. 1730, H.R. 382, and H.R. 411 would each provide the
tools necessary in that regard by allowing considered choices by local
communities and the state about how landfills are developed and utilized. While
the bills differ slightly in their approaches, each would allow us to recognize
the effects of imported waste and to factor those effects into decisions about
whether imported waste will be accepted. And we support the goals of these bills
for that reason.
As previously noted, the ten years that this issue has laid before Congress
has been costly to Michigan. While we urge you to action soon, we also urge you
to take the action that will be most effective. Given the sensitive legal and
international relations issues that surround this topic, the best approach will
be one that minimizes the potential for litigation thereby resulting in the
earliest practical opportunities for states to use the new authority granted by
Congress.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. At this time,
states have very limited ability to regulate imports of out-of-state solid
waste; however, it is possible for federal legislation to create a balance
between the communities' plans for their long-term disposal needs and the needs
of private waste disposal firms to operate profitably, to compete fairly with
each other, and to honor existing contractual relationships. Michigan welcomes
the opportunity to provide assistance to this committee in developing
legislation which would give states the ability to impose reasonable regulation
of waste imports while recognizing existing waste management relationships and
the needs of the waste disposal industry and waste generators to operate
effectively. We ask you to move forward quickly in doing so and to move a bill
toward final passage.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
|
|
