Senator George V. Voinovich
Interstate Waste Hearing Opening Statement
June 17, 1999

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for conducting this very important hearing today on a nationwide problem interstate waste shipments. I strongly believe it is time for Congress to give state and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other states and manage their own waste within their own states.

Ohio received about 1.5 million tons of trash in 1998 from other states. (Up from 1.4 million tons in 1997 and 1.1 million tons in 1996.) While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced from 1.9 million tons when I first became Governor, I believe it is still entirely too high. And we have no assurances that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise to our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989.

Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, other states have simply put their garbage on trains, trucks or barges and shipped it to states like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop.

Many state and local governments have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other states. We saw limited relief. But honestly, Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly with the upcoming closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001.

However, the federal courts have prevented states from enacting laws to protect our natural resources. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other states both importing and exporting have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn.

Quite frankly, state and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, states that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other states' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of-state waste increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.

Ohio and many other states have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal in other states has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the commerce clause requires us to service other states at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.

A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors Governor Bayh , Governor Engler and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation.

In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our states quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey -- the second largest exporting state -- on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.

The bill that Senator Bayh and I introduced, S. 872, reflects the agreement that our two states, along with Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with Governor Whitman.

For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for states to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a "permit cap," which would allow a state to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a state could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility.

These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other states that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day approximately 1.5 million tons a year from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the state and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.

With the announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill, it is even more critical to Ohio that states should receive the authority to place limits on new facilities and expansions of existing facilities. The Congressional Research Service estimates that when Fresh Kills closes, there will be an additional 13,200 tons of garbage each day diverted to other facilities. However, CRS also points out that there is only about 1,200 tons per day of capacity available in the entire state of New York. Even if New York handles some of that 13,200 tons a day in-state, it is estimated that about 4 million tons per year will still need to be managed outside the state from that landfill alone.

In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other states until local governments approve its receipt. States also could freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some states would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2006. This bill also allows states to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2007 at the earliest.

States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide states with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.

And finally, the bill grants limited flow control authority in order for municipalities to pay off existing bonds and guarantee a dedicated waste stream for landfills or incinerators.

Flow control is important to states like New Jersey, which has taken aggressive steps to try to manage all of its trash within its borders by the year 2000. New Jersey communities have acted responsibly to build disposal facilities to help meet that goal. However, if Congress fails to protect existing flow control authorities, repayment of the outstanding $1.9 billion investment in New Jersey alone will be jeopardized.

I am deeply concerned that responsible decisions made by Ohio, New Jersey and other states have been undermined and have put potentially large financial burdens on communities and have encouraged exporting states to pass their trash problems onto the backs of others.

Twenty-four Governors, including Governor Whitman, and the Western Governors' Association have sent letters to Congress strongly supporting the provisions that are in our bill.

In addition, S. 872 is consistent with National Governors' Association policy, which was adopted by all of the nation's Governors. This policy states that Governors must be able to act on their own initiative to limit, reduce or freeze waste import levels at existing and future facilities. It also calls for the ability for states to impose surcharges on interstate waste shipments.

Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of-state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, Senator Bayh and I are not asking for outright authority for states to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor are we seeking to prohibit waste from any one state.

We are asking for reasonable tools that will enable state and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other states. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around our own states' needs.

I believe the time is right to move an effective interstate waste bill. S. 872 represents a consensus of importing and exporting states states that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution.


Voinovich-Bayh Interstate Waste Bill
Major Provisions

Freeze Authority. Allows states to freeze out-of-state waste at 1993 levels.

Presumptive Ban. Gives local governments more power to determine whether they want to accept out-of-state waste by prohibiting disposal facilities that did not receive out-of-state waste in 1993 from receiving such waste until the affected local government approves its receipt. Facilities that have a host community agreement or permit in place that specifically authorizes the facility to accept out-of-state waste would be exempt from the ban.

Ratchet. Allows states that received more than 650,000 tons of out-of-state waste in 1993 to reduce their waste to 65 percent of 1993 levels by 2006 and thereafter.

Permit Caps. A state legislature may set a percentage limitation on the amount of out-of-state waste that new facilities or expansions of existing facilities could receive. Such limitation would apply statewide to all such facilities. A state legislature could not set a percentage limit below 20 percent.

Needs Determination. Gives states an option to deny a permit for a new facility or major modification to a facility if it is determined there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility.

Construction and Demolition Debris. Allows states to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris by 50 percent in 2007 at the earliest.

Authority to impose fees on out-of-state waste. Allows states to authorize up to a $3 per ton surcharge on out-of-state waste.

Flow Control. Authorizes any state or political subdivision that adopted flow control prior to 1984, or that adopted flow control that was later suspended due to court action or any violation of the Commerce clause, to reinstate it. Authorizes any state or political subdivision to reinstate flow control for solid waste and recycled materials for the life of a bond.


June 16, 1999

The Honorable George V. Voinovich
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Voinovich:

The National Association of Counties (NACo) supports the reinstatement of enforceable flow control authority to local governments that own or operate debt-financed solid waste facilities. We commend you for sponsoring legislation that will enable counties and municipalities to recover one of their tools to effectively carry out the waste management responsibilities.

As you know, in 1994 the U.S. Supreme Court, in C&A; Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, struck down an ordinance directing municipal solid waste generated within the town's borders to a designated facility, thereby depriving the town of the revenue stream that financed an environmentally-sound solid waste management system. As a result of the ruling, and similar lower court decisions, the financial underpinning of many public landfills and waste-to-energy facilities have been placed in jeopardy. To assure that debt service payments were made on tone, counties, cities and towns have dipped into reserve fiends and adopted new taxes and user fees on residents ant businesses.

S. 872 will "godfather" local facilities that relied upon flow control authority prior to the Carbone decision and allow prior bonded debt to be repaid with revenues from a steady stream of municipal solid waste. It will also permit local governments that have successfully prevailed in federal courts since the Carbine ruling to maintain the alternative solid waste funding systems they have established.

NACo is appreciative of your efforts on behalf of local governments on this issue, and we are pleased to endorse He floor control provisions of S. 872. Thank you for your sponsorship of this important legislation. Please feel tree to contact NACo's Associate Legislative Director for environment, energy and land use, Diane Shea (202/942-4269) if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Larry B. Naake, Executive Director


June 15, 1999,

The Honorable George Voinovich
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Voinovich:

On behalf of the Western Governor's Association (WGA), we would like to commend you for introducing S. 872, "The Municipal Solid Waste Interstate and Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999." This bill would authorize much needed tools to states to manage the disposal of out-of-state municipal solid waste. We strongly support sections 2 and 3 of the bill, and urge their passage during this Congress. WGA does not have a position on "flow control," and therefore does not advocate any position on that section of the bill.

Western Governors believe each State should do everything it possibly can to manage the wastes generated within its borders. We do not support an outright ban on waste shipments between States because there are many examples of safe, effective and efficient cross-border waste managemetn arrangements.

We believe the provisions in sections 2 and 3 of yoru bill would provide States reasonable controls over both current, and future, waste streams. The Governors particularly appreciate section "2(i) Cost Recovery Surcharge." Authority for cost recovery surcharges is needed to help States offset their costs for overseeing the disposal of out-of-state wastes. The Governors also support section "3(b) Authority to Deny Permits to Impose Percentage Limits." Percentage limitations are necessary for States to paln and protect future in-state disposal capacity by ensuring that a portion of landfills and incinerators will be available for in-state use. To that end, we would seek an amendment that addresses significant increases of out-of-state waste going to existing sites under host community agreements.

Again, we commend you for introducing S. 872, and urge its passage this Congress.

Sincerely,

Michael O. Leavitt,
Governor of Utah
WGA Lead Governor

John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.
Governor of Oregon


State of Indiana
State of Ohio
State of Michigan
State of New Jersey

Dear Senators Voinovich and Bayh:

We are writing to express our strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999, which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would at long last give state and local governments federal authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of interstate waste and protect public investments in waste disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal needs.

Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the passage of effective federal legislation that would vest states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. The need for such legislation arose from venous U.S. Supreme Court rulings applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to state laws restricting out-of-state waste and directing the flow of solid waste shipments.

We are committed to working with all states and building upon the broad state support which exists to pass legislation in the 1 06'h Congress that will provide a balanced set of controls for state and local governments to use in limiting out-of-state waste shipments and directing intrastate shipments. The need for congressional action on interstate waste/flow control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last year, the Congressional Research Service reported that its most recent data showed interstate waste shipments increasing to a total of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh Kills landfill in New York City is likely to dramatically increase that figure.

Your bill includes provisions which we believe are important for state and local governments such as the general requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste prior to disposal in landfills and incinerators. The legislation does include a number of important exemptions for current flows of . It also provides authority for states to establish a statewide freeze of waste shipments or, in some cases, implement reductions. In addition, the legislation explicitly authorizes states to implement laws requiring an assessment of regional and local needs before issuing facility permits or establishing statewide out-of-state percentage limitations for new or expanded facilities.

We legislation would also allow states to impose a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to protect public investments.

We recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments; instead, it would give states and localities the tools they need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and protect important natural resources. We pledge our support for your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become a dumping ground for solid waste. We believe your bill will enjoy wide support and look forward to working with you to secure its passage.

Sincerely,

Frank O'Bannon, Governor, State of Indiana

John Engler, Governor, State of Michigan

Bob Taft, Governor, State of Ohio

Christine T. Whitman, Governor, State of New Jersey


COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
HARRISBURG April 22, 1999

Dear Senator Voinovich and Senator Bayh:

I am writing to express my strong support for the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999, which you plan to introduce this week. This legislation would at long last give state and local governments federal authority to establish reasonable limitations on the flow of interstate waste and protect public investments in waste disposal facilities needed to address in-state disposal needs.

Both of you know firsthand the problems states face in managing solid waste, as required by federal law. During your terms of office as Governors, you worked to support the passage of effective federal legislation that would vest states with sufficient authority to plan for and control the disposal of municipal solid waste, including noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. The need for such legislation arose from various U.S. Supreme Court mlings applying the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to state laws resmcting out-of-state waste and directing the flow of solid waste shipments.

I am committed to working with all states and building upon the broad state support which exists to pass legislation in the 106th Congress that will provide a balanced set of controls for state and local governments to use in limiting out-of-state waste shipments and directing innate shipments. The need for congressional action on interstate waste/flow control legislation is becoming more urgent. Last year, the Congressional Research Service reported that its most recent data showed interstate waste shipments increasing to a total of over 25 million tons. The closing of the Fresh Kills landfill in blew York City is likely to dramatically increase that figure.

Your bill includes provisions which I believe are important for state and local governments such as the general requirement that local officials formally approve the receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste prior to disposal in landfills and incinerators. lye legislation toes include a number of important exemptions for current flows of waste. It also provides authority for stares to establish a statewide freeze of waste shipments or, in some cases, implement reductions. In addition, the legislation explicitly authorizes states to implement laws requinug an assessment of regional and local needs before issuing facility permits or establishing statewide out-of-state percentage limitations for new or expanded facilities.

The legislation would also allow sums to impose a S3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste and would provide additional authority for states to reduce the flow of noncontaminated construction and demolition debris. Under a separate set of provisions, states would also be authorized to exercise limited flow control authority necessary to protect public investments

I recognize that the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999 would not establish an outright ban on out-of-state waste shipments; m-stead, it would give states and localities the tools they need to better manage their in-state waste disposal needs and protect important natural resources. I pledge our support for your efforts to ensure that no state is forced to become a dumping ground for solid waste. I believe your bill will enjoy wide Support and look forward to working with you to secure its passage

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge