By John Hadfield

"Sure, recycling makes me feel good, but more than that, it makes me feel a part of the elite," said a librarian friend of mine recently.

For many years, we have been preaching the need and value of recycling. We teach our children at home, we encourage "how to" displays at museums and public exhibits, and schools have devoted a part of their curriculum to promote recycling.

Then why are participation rates falling in so many places around the country?

The Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) began its recycling program in 1989 with much fanfare, largely to respond to the growing clamor for recycling service and to make the public more aware of how buying choices affected the environment and waste disposal costs. Service offerings quickly grew along with participation. Within two years, weekly curbside collection service was available to 250,000 homes in southeastern Virginia.

In 2002, we began questioning the value of recycling altogether. In comparing costs for recycling to costs for landfilling waste, recycling loses. We asked the question of whether we should replace the aging fleet of collection vehicles, improve the service, or discontinue curbside collection of recyclables. We held a series of workshops for the board of directors, asking the question, "What will a good recycling program look like?"

We asked them to identify the information they would need to make a sound and informed decision. One of the data points they requested was information regarding public opinion on recycling. Controversy breeds interest, and it was obvious that we had discovered controversy! In the summer of 2002, here in the capital of the Navy's fleet, as the United States was preparing to invade Iraq, the SPSA recycling program became headline news, beating out Saddam Hussein for coverage!

Many of our staff and several members of the board of directors saw economics as the prevailing issue. The board asked for cost information on each alternative for our recycling program. While other factors were important, for many board members costs were paramount. We were, after all, spending the public's money, and we needed to be as frugal as possible. For some others, SPSA's waste-to-energy program was a reasonable choice for recycling. Some asked why we wanted to spend the money collecting the recyclables at the curbside if we were recycling metals and energy through the waste-to-energy system. Wasn't that enough recycling? The goodwill of the public that had been developed over the years was not fully appreciated. We, supported by the waste and environmental industries, had convinced the public that recycling was good for them, good for the environment, and good for the region we serve.

We had been spending the public's money in 1989 as well, so what had changed? Carbone v Clarkstown had made a huge difference. Before Carbone, SPSA was a regulated monopoly. SPSA controlled the wastestream and disposal costs for all waste generated in its region in Virginia. The board of directors set disposal fees to sustain the programs it had chosen. Disposal fees were $34.00/ton. After Carbone, disposal fees rose quickly to $48.50/ton as SPSA found itself deregulated overnight and in uncharted territory of competition. Suddenly we found the need to be competitive with private-sector options for disposal. We began seeking ways to cut costs without fully appreciating the impact on the "customer." We shifted to a biweekly collection schedule and reduced costs dramatically. We lost customers. We stopped advertising the service and the collection schedule and reduced costs. We lost customers. We reduced, and then eliminated, our outreach to elementary schools to save a little more, and we saw participation drop a little more.

In our zeal to become competitive, we had given up our advertising program, not just changed its focus. We were not promoting the benefits and the higher calling of recycling to our business community. We had lost the vision that could communicate the intrinsic value of recycling. That was certainly the impression of our political and business leadership. We had failed to promote the value of recycling as a higher standard than other waste management options available.

Looking back, we were probably "penny-wise and pound-foolish." As we reduced spending, our choices of where to cut costs did not consider the vision of the future. That is 20/20 hindsight of course. The lessons we have learned are legion. One subtle but profound lesson is that in this business, as in so many others, we must always look forward. We must invest today for the future we expect to achieve tomorrow. It is true for our recycling programs and it is true for all of our of our waste management goals. Without vision, we will be saddled with always digging out of a hole. Without commitment, our vision will be meaningless.

My librarian friend is right in a broader sense. The high road, when taken, gives us all a sense of value. We become part of the elite, fulfilling the vision of a better society for us all. We must keep our eye on the ball.

John Hadfield is with the Southeastern Public Service Authority in Chesapeake, VA, and a member of MSW Management's Editorial Advisory Board.

MSW - November/December 2003