| |
My name is Michael Garfield. I'm the Director of the Ecology Center, a
statewide environmental organization that has worked on Michigan solid waste
issues for 33 years. In addition to our advocacy work, the Ecology Center is the
parent organization of the largest community-based recycling program in the
state of Michigan. That program has been cited by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as one of the 15 best recycling programs in the country,
achieving a 52% recovery rate. I am a former manager of that recycling program,
and have worked in waste management policy and the recycling business for
sixteen years. I am also an organizer of Don't Trash Michigan, a coalition of
organizations devoted to placing sensible restrictions on waste imports and
improving Michigan's solid waste policies. Don't Trash Michigan consists of 29
environmental, church, and labor organizations which collectively represent over
250,000 Michigan residents.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
I would begin by emphasizing that our objections to out-of-state waste are
not borne of blind hostility to other people's garbage. We are not calling to
close down Michigan's borders, and we do not see a net benefit from a federal
law that would create a blanket ban on interstate waste shipments. Instead, we
believe that the core problem facing Michigan and other states is that we have
not been given the tools to conduct thoughtful and environmentally protective
waste management planning in the face of the regionalization of solid waste
markets. We need your help to empower local and regional planning systems to fix
serious problems like Michigan and other states now experience, and to prevent
future problems from arising elsewhere.
We could support H.R. 382, if it is found to be compliant with the North
American Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements. We are aware
of concerns raised by some experts regarding the consistency of this approach
with international agreements. I am not a legal expert, and will offer no
opinion on this matter. But I urge you, in addressing the waste transportation
problem, to advance carefully crafted legislative solutions whose implementation
is least likely to be stalled by legal challenges. Michigan's problem is
immediate and growing.
We also support H.R. 411 to deal with the international aspect of our
problem. Frankly, it is hard for residents and organizations in Michigan to
understand why a long-standing agreement, signed by both countries, has so far
gone unimplemented and unenforced, and now requires a Congressional resolution
to be put in effect. We are disappointed that EPA has done nothing to date to
carry out its provisions.
We're further confounded by this inaction given that the Government of Canada
provides Canadian waste generators and haulers with a significant financial
incentive to export solid waste to the United States. When Canadian waste is
dumped in Canadian landfills or other Canadian disposal facilities, their
federal government assesses a 7% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the
transaction. However, when Canadian waste is disposed in the United States, the
GST is not assessed. When the State of Oregon applied differential taxation
rates to waste originating from in-state sources versus out-of-state sources,
the practice was ruled an unconstitutional restraint of commerce by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Wouldn't Canada's differential taxation on waste based on its
disposal destination also be an unfair protection of its landfill space, and
subsequently a violation of NAFTA?
Finally, we strongly support H.R. 1730 as a measure to give local communities
the wherewithal to conduct thoughtful waste management planning. In Michigan,
the press has lasered in on the trash shipments to Michigan from the City of
Toronto, but our problem is not only with Canada's largest city. Less than half
of the Canadian waste dumped in Michigan originates in Toronto. Nor is our
concern just a Michigan-Ontario dispute. Forty-three percent of the out-of-state
waste dumped in Michigan originates in other U.S. states.
Over 3.5 million tons of out-of-state garbage is disposed in Michigan
landfills, approximately 20% of the total. This amount has been increasing
rapidly in recent years, particularly the portion coming from Ontario. Some have
argued that Michigan also exports solid waste to other states. However, we only
export 85,000 tons per year, which means that 41 tons come in to Michigan for
every one we send out. Likewise, some have argued that Michigan exports
hazardous waste to Canada and other states. However, Michigan is also a net
importer of hazardous waste, receiving approximately twice as much hazardous
waste (506,000 tons) as we export (246,000 tons).
The current system has left Michigan citizens in the predicament of being
victimized for good behavior. We're surrounded by four of the Great Lakes. Half
of our residents rely on groundwater for their drinking water. The citizens of
Michigan share a strong land stewardship ethic.
Dating back to the mid-1970s, we had put in place a protective and
responsible waste management policy. Our beverage container recycling program
has achieved a best-in-the-nation 95% recovery rate. We have extensive yard
waste diversion programs. Some of our communities have outstanding recycling
programs.
When Michigan began to run short on landfill space in the late-1980s and
early-1990s, we didn't look to Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ontario
to assume our burden. We went through the politically torturous process of
siting new landfills, and we allowed new facilities to open - in some cases,
over strenuous local objections.
Michigan could manage its problem because we have in place what was a fairly
sophisticated county-based planning system that requires counties to assume the
obligation for disposing or recovering their trash. They can do this through the
designation of facilities within their boundaries, or through the designation of
facilities in other counties or states, provided that the recipient units of
government agree to the exports. In almost all cases, the recipient unit of
government does agree to the export designation, and the process affords them a
mechanism for handling their obligations. This system of negotiating designated
capacity forces counties to assume the practical and moral responsibility for
getting rid of their trash, while letting them carefully plan disposal capacity
so they don't have to site more landfills than they need.
We believe that a solid waste planning system like this - based on the
principles of local/regional responsibility, local/regional control, and
state-based minimum standards - is the most sensible way to manage solid waste
policy. It is similar to good land use planning, also best managed locally and
regionally in accordance with statutory minimum standards. For solid waste, we
believe it is the best way to balance the need for disposal against a reasonable
community interest in preserving land for other, better uses. It is also an
economically efficient method of solid waste program planning.
However, the influx of out-of-state waste into Michigan has thrown our
planning system into chaos, and has undermined our citizens' commitment to waste
reduction and responsible waste management. Many citizens have given up
recycling on the grounds that their efforts are only saving landfill space for
trash from other states and Canada. Our recycling office has received dozens of
calls to this effect, and the recycling rate in our community has decreased
slightly during the past three years. Throughout the State of Michigan over the
past several years, the growth in recycling programs has plateaued, and in some
cases, slid back.
Second, the influx of out-of-state waste to huge regional mega-landfills
devastates the quality of life in our local communities. It brings large amounts
of heavy truck traffic, increased air pollution, blowing debris, and foul odors.
It brings the threat of long-term future groundwater contamination, as took
place at many older facilities.
The impacts are unmistakable every hour of every day for Lynette and Ken
Guzman, of Huron Township, about twenty miles southwest of Detroit. The Guzmans
and their two young children live on what used to be a quiet two-lane country
road filled with tree-lined front yards and families relaxing outdoors in the
summertime. But now that road is abuzz with the red Wilson Logistics trailer
trucks - almost 200 hundred per day, six or seven days per week - each carrying
more than 30 tons of Toronto's trash, arriving as early as 6:00 a.m. The road is
the most direct route from the highway to Republic Services' Carleton Farms
Landfill. The prevailing winds blow from the landfill toward the Guzmans'
community, so they and their neighbors rarely leave their windows open in the
summer, much less sit outside anymore. As trucks leave the landfill, they
frequently leave a trail of trash and mud or thick dust along the road and in
residents' front yards. Four months ago, as one of the Guzmans' neighbors tried
to pull into her driveway, a Wilson truck rear-ended her into a second Wilson
truck coming from the other direction. The woman required major reconstructive
surgery to her face and is still confined to a wheelchair. Her eight-year old
son witnessed the accident as he was boarding his school bus.
The waste industry often argues that their landfills generate a significant
source of revenue for the impacted communities. But the Guzmans' story refutes
this argument. Republic Services has signed a host community agreement with
Sumpter Township, the rural township where its landfill is located. But
Republic's landfill is located in the far southeastern corner of the township,
and few residents of Sumpter Township live within two miles of the facility.
However, hundreds of households are located within shouting distance of the
facility to the east, in Huron Township, and to the southeast, in Ash Township,
which is even in a different county (Monroe) than the landfill (Wayne). The
trucks roll through Huron Township, where the Guzmans live, and don't even pass
into Sumpter Township until they enter the landfill property. While Sumpter
Township receives a fee payment for every ton of trash dumped in the Republic
landfill there, Huron and Ash Townships do not receive one cent.
Third, the huge regional landfills consolidate the inherently toxic nature of
ordinary municipal solid waste, posing a long-term future groundwater
contamination threat. Municipal solid waste typically includes household
hazardous wastes such as pesticides and batteries, heavy metals from used
electronics, toxic compounds from automotive fluids, and other potential
contaminants. During the course of this year, U.S. Customs officials have
identified several Canadian trucks carrying medical waste and other prohibited
items. But how many trucks carry prohibited items which are never discovered?
To partially address the concern of toxic loading into disposal facilities,
Michigan has banned the landfill disposal of lead-acid batteries, used motor
oil, yard waste, sewage, asbestos waste, and other items. Some of our
neighboring jurisdictions, however, do not have restrictions as stringent. For
example, Ontario does not ban disposal of lead-acid batteries or used motor oil.
Finally, the lack of local control over out-of-state waste undermines
Michigan's recycling programs. Disposal over-capacity in Michigan and in other
over-built states has created powerful downward price pressures in regional
landfill markets. Large waste generators have recently been signing contracts
with Michigan landfills for less than one-third the going rate in Ohio, Indiana,
and other neighboring states. While local governments can break even or return
modest profits from an investment in recycling programs, they cannot beat the
artificially low prices in Michigan's current landfill-heavy economic climate.
As a result, Michigan communities have been witnessing a slow and steady
disinvestment in recycling and recovery programs by both private and public
sector service providers, despite otherwise reasonable profitability in the
recycling industry.
The most innovative and entrepreneurial solutions for waste management -
state-of-the-art recycling, composting, reuse, household hazardous waste
programs - are being developed at the local level. These solutions are part of a
growing, yet still young, recycling/recovery industry. The economic development
of this industry relies on a regulatory structure which holds local communities
responsible for managing their own trash. If local communities and waste
generators can look 300 miles and more across state and international borders to
low-cost regional disposal options, then the incentive for recycling innovation
is eliminated. At present, the federal framework presents local communities with
a no-holds-barred approach to landfill siting and waste transport. States have
no tools to counter-balance dramatic capacity and price differentials between
each other. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and a handful of other states have
been the losers in the first decade of regional landfills after the Ft. Gratiot
decision. Without federal intervention, other states will no doubt join us in
coming years.
This prospect was foreseen by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his Ft. Gratiot
dissent. He wrote:
"In adopting this legislation, the Michigan Legislature also appears to
have concluded that, like the State, counties should reap as they have sown -
hardly a novel proposition. It has required counties within the State to be
responsible for the waste created within the county. It has accomplished this by
prohibiting waste facilities from accepting waste generated from outside the
county, unless special permits are obtained.
"The Court today penalizes the State of Michigan for what to all
appearances are its good-faith efforts, in turn encouraging each State to ignore
the waste problem in the hope that another will pick up the slack. The Court's
approach fails to recognize that the latter option is one that is quite real and
quite attractive for many States - and becomes even more so when the
intermediate option of solving its own problems, but only its own problems, is
eliminated."
Eleven years later, the Chief Justice's forecast has materialized in Michigan
and other states. We now need the help of Congress to regain some measure of
local control over landfill siting, to restore a level playing field between the
states, and to promote the economic development potential of recycling. Please
take action as soon as possible to address this growing problem.
|
|
