2.1  Preamble

During the past three decades, states have made considerable efforts to improve the environmental protection afforded by solid waste management strategies. Many state and local governments developed and implemented long-term solid waste management plans to smooth the transition from unregulated disposal to environmentally sound waste management practices. Communities made substantial investments to comply with the emerging body of federal and state laws and regulations governing solid waste. Several U.S. Supreme Court decisions dating from 1978 have limited state options and overturned state mechanisms for managing waste, further complicating state efforts to establish appropriate rules to govern waste management.

The Governors reaffirm their goal of ensuring that all wastes are handled in an environmentally sound manner.

This policy is not intended to apply to any waste regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

2.2 Interstate Transportation of Solid Waste

U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan DNR and Philadelphia v. New Jersey, have left states with insufficient authority to regulate interstate waste shipments. Without specific authorization from Congress, states lack the reasonable tools necessary to implement sound solid waste disposal and recycling plans. Importing states have the right to expect that unwanted imports will be reduced as quickly as possible. The authority to levy surcharges and impose limitations on imported waste can help ease the burdens of the host state and can act as incentives to exporting states to develop sufficient in-state capacity.

2.2.1 Fees on Waste Imports. Congress should authorize states to impose a surcharge on waste imported for disposal at facilities permitted to handle municipal solid waste. This fee would recognize such host state burdens as the assumption of the additional cost of ensuring the proper management of imported waste, as well as the potential long-term liability cost of its disposal.

2.2.2 Restrictions on Waste Imports. Governors must be able to act on their own initiative in certain circumstances and consistent with state law to limit, reduce, or freeze waste import levels at existing and future facilities permitted to dispose of municipal solid waste.

2.3 Role of State and Local Governments

The primary responsibility for planning, implementation, enforcement, siting, and the day-to-day operation of solid waste management facilities should remain with state and local governments. Nothing in this policy shall be construed as an endorsement by the Governors of an expanded federal role in areas of state responsibility.

2.4 Solid Waste Transfer Facilities

The Governors are concerned that the federal Surface Transportation Board has inappropriately preempted state and local laws for rail-based solid waste transfer facilities under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. The extension of the preemption to rail-based solid waste transfer facilities interferes with state and local authority to oversee the siting, management, and compliance of these facilities. The Governors believe that rail-based solid waste transfer facilities are not integral to the operations of railroads and urge Congress to clarify that the preemption granted under federal law does not apply to these facilities.

2.5  Congressional Action

For more than 10 years, Congress has debated granting states a limited exemption to the commerce clause for the purpose of allowing states to exercise some flow control authority and implement appropriate constraints on waste imports but has never approved a final measure.

Governors believe that Congress should act now to grant state and local governments reasonable authority to implement and enforce solid waste management plans. Federal legislation must ensure the ability to repay debts incurred in good faith under flow control systems as well as allow limits on waste imports under appropriate conditions. Such legislation should establish appropriate, fair, and consistent guidelines to govern the interaction of all the private and public participants in the solid waste market. States and local communities should be able to decide how best to manage their waste without the threat of uncertain, and constantly changing, federal parameters for those decisions.

Time limited (effective Annual Meeting 2009–Winter Meeting 2010).
Adopted Annual Meeting 1990; revised Annual Meeting 1991, Winter Meeting 1993, and Winter Meeting 1995; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1997; revised Annual Meeting 1997, Annual Meeting 1999, and Annual Meeting 2001; reaffirmed Annual Meeting 2003; revised Annual Meeting 2005 and Annual Meeting 2007; reaffirmed Annual Meeting 2009 (formerly Policy D-9).