|
By Laurie Batchelder Adams
Let’s
face it: Waste diversion is not considered a primary
public service on par with wastewater treatment or K–12
education. Conserving the resources in our wastestream
is not viewed as critical to public health or short-term
environmental protection. In fact, the “preliminary
results”—achieved by communities of all
sizes from Maine to California—have not persuaded
our national leadership even to allocate enough resources
to adequately study the true value of waste diversion.
To be fair,
EPA has provided data and coordinated important stakeholder
discussions. Several states and many local governments
have developed stellar waste diversion programs with
standard-setting results. The commercial sector has
sporadic but encouraging case studies. There has even
been national recycling legislation (largely unsuccessful
to date), and the promise of new recycling caucuses
in both houses of Congress this year (great news, but
can you believe this industry is just reaching the caucus-let’s-discuss-it-and-see-if-there-is-anything-to-it
stage?).
Reuse, recycling,
and composting have historically been a grass-roots
movement. Until such time as there is true national
and consistent state leadership, it will be the steady
drumbeat of local successes that will change consumer
and waste-generator priorities at home, in the office,
and in our legislative hallways.
So how do
we capitalize on all this “power” at the
local government level? How do we develop more proof
of the cost-to-benefit value of waste diversion? I’ve
had the privilege of working with numerous municipal
and county governments in the Rocky Mountain states
and have seen some real diversion successes—witness
Utah’s recycling market zone program, southern
Idaho’s seven-county solid waste district, or
Boulder County’s zero waste resolution in Colorado.
I’m sure you have all witnessed (or participated
in) programs that are equally laudable.
Over several
years of working in this region, however, I have observed
a few basic approaches that smaller governments—and
even some larger entities—overlook while striving
to provide solid waste services that are both effective
and sustainable, while on a shoestring budget.
1. Plan
the Work and Work the Plan—Trite but true. Integrated
solid waste strategies that recognize both diversion
and disposal are important. While solid waste plans
don’t have to be huge investments, they shouldn’t
be developed to occupy shelf space. They should characterize
the status and issues of current programs, establish
clear goals for the future, and describe feasible options
for getting there. Updated with a reasonable frequency,
these plans will ideally involve key stakeholders, and
may be done internally or out-sourced. (Caution: discussion
groups should be facilitated to keep progress on track
and ancillary studies should be results-oriented so
staff and supporters don’t waste dollars better
spent on a new drop-site roll-off or an outreach brochure.)
In all parts of the country, numerous plans have been
developed that can serve as good examples.
2. Find
that Biggest Bang for the Buck—While newspaper,
cardboard, and containers lead the forefront of municipal
recycling today, these materials are not the biggest
contributors to most wastestreams. Focusing on C&D,
organic and the full gamut of fiber materials early
in the process can provide a greater bang for the buck.
Admittedly, markets for these materials aren’t
in abundance in most rural areas. Developing and encouraging
end uses often requires research, partnering and regionalizing.
Tackling these materials takes ingenuity and perseverance—but
can be well worth the effort in terms of potential quantity
diverted and landfill space saved.
3. More
Regional Solutions for “Problem” Materials—E-waste,
HHW, tires, and C&D may be acceptable in the local
landfill. But even in the Rocky Mountains, where landfill
tip fees can be below $20 per ton, the prospect of building
that next Subtitle D cell is not appealing to any landfill
manager. Regional solutions can include multi-county
collection events, interagency agreements for mobile
processing units, centralized crushing operations, market
initiatives, and partnerships with private businesses
for composting or backhauling materials. These solutions
can go a long way towards taking problem materials out
of the landfill and into a break-even proposition.
4. Evaluate
the Long-Term Impacts of Policy Decisions—Colorado
provides a good illustration of a short-term decision
with unintended consequences. A majority of the state’s
local governments have privatized their solid waste
systems—primarily open-subscription residential
refuse collection and optional (if any) recycling. While
the short-term benefits of “getting out of the
solid waste business” are many, the long-term
lack of control has its down side. Recently there were
3 pieces of state recycling legislation (2 failed) that
local governments supported—but were surprised
to find their influence over Colorado’s General
Assembly paling in comparison to that of the private
waste management companies. This sort of long-term outcome
needs to be considered when making key policy.
5. That
Said, Consider Good Policy—Political leaders are
rarely interested in testing their constituents’
support by introducing a controversial trash bill. But
governments shouldn’t shy away from making policy
that controls how solid waste services are provided—be
they public or private—and to set overall priorities
for waste diversion. All policies don’t have to
be of the “stick” variety (i.e., mandates
and penalties). The “carrot” approach, including
price signals (such as variable rates) and incentives
to the residential and business sectors can often be
effective in increasing diversion—and more palatable
to the voters or council.
Until there
is comprehensive and consistent national policy that
provides the universal direction and resources necessary
to make waste reduction practices the norm, it falls
to local governments to march on, to beat those drums
sure and steady. MSW
Laurie
Batchelder Adams is President of LBA Associates and
the treasurer of SWANA’s International Board.
She can be reached at lbaassoc@qwest.net.
MSW
- March/April 2006
|
