Senator Specter and I, along with a number of those on this Committee, including my senior colleague John Warner, have been working for years to give states and localities the authority they need to regulate interstate garbage. When I first started working on this problem in 1993, we faced a situation slightly different than the one that confronts us today. Then, there were waste companies that were threatening to build landfills in communities where they were absolutely unwanted. Unfortunately, many rural communities were powerless to stop them, so I introduced legislation to protect all communities from being dumped on by unwanted out-of-state garbage.
In an effort to move this debate forward, Senator Warner and I crafted legislation using some and relatively novel approaches to try to strike the proper balance between allowing interstate commerce and necessary protections for states and localities. I hope some of the ideas we included in our bill, S. 533, can form the basis of a bill that can help break the logjam that has prevented passage of interstate waste legislation in the past. All of us who represent states on the receiving end of all this interstate garbage understand that the only bill that will truly protect our states is a bill that can be signed into law. So while we may be tempted to introduce draconian legislation that could score political points back home, we need to stay focused on developing a solution that scores legislative points here in the Congress.
It is time for us to craft a serious, sensible, workable piece of legislation that will provide communities with the authority to say "no" to waste imports, provide Governors with the authority to limit waste imports if the cumulative affect of imports proves harmful, and to ensure that importing states receive compensation for the increased costs incurred from handling waste imports.
The situation in Virginia, I believe, is similar to that in many states. In the past 10 years Virginia has issued permits to seven large landfills. Because the cumulative impact of these disposal facilities can be broad and negative, states need to have the authority to address these potentially long-term cumulative effects.
In an effort to gain some protection, this year Virginia's General Assembly enacted legislation attempting to address the problems created by the cumulative impact of these seven mega-landfills. But this effort serves to highlight the need for Congress to act. To overcome a Constitutional challenge, the state placed a limit on the amount of waste that each landfill could accept. This total cap applies to both Virginia trash and non-Virginia trash headed for the landfill. If a landfill operator can accept only a limited number of tons, then common sense suggests that they will accept the most lucrative tons first. To get access to that landfill, then, Virginia communities might have to get into a "bidding war" with trash coming in from outside the state.
Because the Virginia law does not (and may not under the Constitution) discriminate against waste from outside of the state, it is likely that the cost of waste disposal for Virginians will go up. Without Congressional action states that try to regulate waste imports reasonably are severely limited in their options. Even though the Virginia legislation appears to conform to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it was challenged last week on constitutional grounds. Whether or not the Virginia statute stands, Virginia and other states need our help.
The bill Senator Warner and I developed has four major provisions to help states. These provisions are intended to broaden the discussion and examine new approaches for solving this long-standing problem.
The first provision provides local communities with the authority to say "no" to imports of municipal solid waste. S. 533 sets out specific requirements for information that is made available to communities before they enter into these agreements, and ensures that the agreement is negotiated in the sunshine, so that all the citizens in the jurisdiction, as well as neighboring jurisdictions and the state, are well aware of the potential effects and benefits of the facility. By requiring host community agreements, S. 533 provides local governments with the authority needed to make the best arrangement for their communities. This has been the basis of the legislation I have sponsored previously, and which came very close to being enacting 5 years ago.
The second provision allows Governors to cap receipts of imported waste at 1998 levels. This provision is similar to the newly adopted law in Virginia, but would allow receipts of in-state waste to continue to grow. Frankly, I wish we had passed the legislation in 1994 and used those levels to limit imports. Unfortunately, since that time new landfills have been opened and have begun accepting out-of-state trash. This presents us, as policy- makers, with a dilemma. If we limit the amount of waste to 1993 levels, that would mean either that landfills built after that time would accept no waste, or the levels the state accepted in 1993 would be apportioned among the landfills existing today. Using 1998 as a base year avoids the problem of trying to determine what volume of waste was imported in earlier years. Some of the legislation under consideration requires that we retreat to the level of imports received in 1993. Although this is desirable in many ways, it seems to me it would be virtually impossible to apportion equitably the waste receipts among existing landfills if the earlier date were used as a base. My concern is that this would open up the states up to expensive and lengthy litigation.
S. 533 also provides for a $3/ton import fee. I liken this fee to out-of-state tuition. There are costs associated with the disposal of waste that are borne by the state that imports the waste. For example, in Virginia those costs come out of the general fund. The cost of site inspections, weigh stations, safety checks, and other enforcement activities are assumed by the importing state. It is appropriate it seems to me, that we share these costs with the exporting entity. A fee of three dollars/ton will cover many of these incremental costs associated with waste importing.
Lastly, S. 533 contains a provision new to this debate. In the past, we've focused on protecting importing states. The last provision in S. 533 focuses instead on encouraging exporting states to begin to find some in-state solutions for their garbage disposal needs. The section provides that beginning in 2001 any state can refuse all imports from a "super exporting state". Should an importing state choose to continue to accept waste from these exporters, the Governor can assess a premium of $25/ton on imports in 2001, $50/ton for waste received in 2002, and $100/ton for waste received in 2003 and all years there after. These fees would give Governors of importing states and super exporting states some room to negotiate as new capacity is developed. It buys some time for the exporters, at a cost high enough to provide needed incentives to site additional space within the state of origin. It is important to remember that the fees are applied to all waste from a super exporter, from the first ton to the last. Hopefully, that will motivate all citizens of exporting states to look for in-state solutions.
It is clear that some interstate commerce in trash is necessary, and perhaps beneficial. For example, Virginia sends some of its waste to Tennessee, and most states, as has already been indicated, accept at least some waste from other states. But it now appears that New York intends to shut the last disposal site serving New York City, without siting additional in-state capacity. This could increase the pressures already felt by neighboring states. Mr. Chairman, Congress should act before Fresh Kills closes, so that the city will not rely on other states for additional disposal capacity.
In the past, I had hoped that by simply providing for the use of host community agreements we would ensure that communities would take only the waste that they felt was essential to operate state of the art disposal facilities. The lack of true authority in this area has aggravated the problem, and now it is necessary to give more authority at the state level, as well as the local level. It is time for the Congress to step in. I believe S. 533 provides new ideas that can strike the right balance, and I hope the Senate can use it as a framework, in concert with other solutions that have been offered by other members of this body, to find a real solution to a very real problem. With that Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of this committee, and I look forward to working with you on crafting legislation.