Judge Issues Injunction Halting Dallas Flow Control
3 views
Skip to first unread message
James Travers
Jan 31, 2012, 6:23:06 PM1/31/12
to Jim Travers
FYI,
Jim Travers
~~~~~~~~~~~
Judge issues injunction,
halts Dallas
flow control law
Jan. 31 -- Saying haulers suing Dallas are likely to succeed in their lawsuit to stop a flow control ordinance, a federal judge has approved a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the law.
Judge Reed O´Connor issued the 33-page written opinion today, several weeks after the two sides argued in his court in Texas.
The National Solid Wastes Management Association and several haulers, including Waste Management Inc. and Republic Services Inc., are suing the city to overturn the city´s flow control ordinance. The law would force all waste collected at commercial facilities, industrial facilities and apartments to be disposed at the city-owned McCommas Bluff Landfill or Bachman Transfer Station.
The judge wrote that the flow control ordinance operates as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship, specifically the franchisee agreements already in place with the haulers and the city.
"This flow control ordinance ... clearly impairs the franchisees´ rights under the franchise agreements, namely the franchisees´ right to dispose of solid waste collected within the city at any location legally authorized to operate as a disposal, collection or processing facility," the judge wrote.
David Biderman, attorney for NSWMA, was happy with the decision.
"We’re very pleased for our members in Dallas and our customers who will not be required to pay higher disposal costs," Biderman said.
He said if there was an appeal, he was confident the appellate court would affirm O’Connor’s decision.
Dallas attorney Peter Haskel said they were still studying the ruling.
"It’s a long order," he said. "We don’t have any comment right now."
The ordinance was previously scheduled to go into effect Jan. 2, but the city agreed to hold off implementing it until at least 30 days following a ruling on the preliminary injunction hearing.
Read the judge’s 33-page injunction order here.
Contact Waste & Recycling News reporter Jeremy Carroll at jcar...@crain.com or 313-446-6780.
Eric Lombardi
Feb 1, 2012, 5:13:19 PM2/1/12
to Greenyes
I think this is a set-back for us and our need to expand “community control” over the discard steam. And I especially liked that it was Dallas, Texas of all places throwing down the challenge to Big Trash.
I tried to rally my network of superbrains to go public in support of Dallas, but surprisingly didn’t get any support because of the fear that this sort of public take-over will be used against us by the WTE industry. Yes, that is true, but I think it’s equally true that Zero Waste is a Social and Community Control issue first, and a free market issue second. If we aren’t successful in getting the discard management systems of the world out of the single-bottom-line marketplace, then our more sustainable and seemingly more expensive ZW Systems will always be second fiddle to “making energy”. I know and you know that if any real “ecological economics” were to be practiced then ZW would win… but I’m afraid that on a planet with 7 Billion and a shrinking resource base, that any social change movement that is depending upon a “new economics” to win the day just isn’t going to cut it. Economic theory is a game of intellectuals, but economic practice is a full-contact sport and we have to get into that game. Dallas jumped into the ring, took the tons (the real economics of this issue), and now are going to get eaten… thus fattening our enemy and sharpening their claws. The bottom-line in all this is that a great competition over access to the tons of resources is being waged, and if we play it right we might be able to “take control” of the value here, also accrue the pollution reduction and lessen the need for resource wars overseas, thus creating community benefit instead of strictly private benefit. I do believe that private social enterprises should do the work and be allowed to make a fair but limited profit, but only within the bounds of the rules we the people dictate. Let’s get serious and take on the Garbage Billionaires … creating instead a network of thousands of green Zero Waste Millionaires!
Eric
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post send email to Gree...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe send email to GreenYes+u...@googlegroups.com
To change email delivery options visit http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
Gary Liss
Feb 1, 2012, 6:10:04 PM2/1/12
to Eric Lombardi, Greenyes, Gary Liss
Eric,
I respectfully disagree with you. In California, we had major battles over this issue of flow control, particularly in the 1990s. CRRA and many of us supported the Rights to Recycle for businesses to be able to choose who they recycled with, rather than being controlled by a single government contract. The CA Supreme Court in 1994 upheld the rights of businesses to recycle with whomever they wanted, as long as the materials were donated or sold to those recycling businesses. And, communities were empowered to decide on a community by community basis whether or not they wanted to allow recycling companies to be able to charge a fee for service.
The CRRA Independent Recyclers Council worked with a coalition of Recyclers for Competition to develop a guide to Flow Control, which can be found at: http://www.crra.com/irc/flowcontrol.html
One of the problems with a community being the sole one to decide where resources go has been that they have had a history of contracting with garbage companies to dispose of these resources as cheaply as they could, without any regard to the social benefits you describe as your goals.
When entrepreneurs have access to these resource streams, they are able to create niche businesses that are economic for them.
There are many tools that cities have to influence the marketplace without having to control it legally. Cities can adopt policies that guide the marketplace without having to be the only one that can do anything. Many cities have adopted Mandatory Commercial Recycling rules that set standards that apply to all businesses, but allow the businesses to figure out the details for themselves. The State of California has just adopted a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB341) that takes effect on July 1, 2012. Other cities and countries have adopted fees on landfilling that have changed the economics of the marketplace overnight. Both of these tools help to level the playing field, and guide the marketplace so that the public policy goals of Zero Waste and high waste diversion are supported.
Gary Liss
I respectfully disagree with you. In California, we had major battles over this issue of flow control, particularly in the 1990s. CRRA and many of us supported the Rights to Recycle for businesses to be able to choose who they recycled with, rather than being controlled by a single government contract. The CA Supreme Court in 1994 upheld the rights of businesses to recycle with whomever they wanted, as long as the materials were donated or sold to those recycling businesses. And, communities were empowered to decide on a community by community basis whether or not they wanted to allow recycling companies to be able to charge a fee for service.
The CRRA Independent Recyclers Council worked with a coalition of Recyclers for Competition to develop a guide to Flow Control, which can be found at: http://www.crra.com/irc/flowcontrol.html
One of the problems with a community being the sole one to decide where resources go has been that they have had a history of contracting with garbage companies to dispose of these resources as cheaply as they could, without any regard to the social benefits you describe as your goals.
When entrepreneurs have access to these resource streams, they are able to create niche businesses that are economic for them.
There are many tools that cities have to influence the marketplace without having to control it legally. Cities can adopt policies that guide the marketplace without having to be the only one that can do anything. Many cities have adopted Mandatory Commercial Recycling rules that set standards that apply to all businesses, but allow the businesses to figure out the details for themselves. The State of California has just adopted a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB341) that takes effect on July 1, 2012. Other cities and countries have adopted fees on landfilling that have changed the economics of the marketplace overnight. Both of these tools help to level the playing field, and guide the marketplace so that the public policy goals of Zero Waste and high waste diversion are supported.
Gary Liss
Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
www.garyliss.com
Hope to see you there!
James Travers
Feb 2, 2012, 4:25:39 AM2/2/12
to Gary Liss, Eric Lombardi, Greenyes
Eric,
While I understand the rationale of wanting to have a municipality retain control of their waste and its disposal, the real reason for Dallas trying to mandate Flow Control is to eliminate competition for their resources in order to have ample feedstock for a planned waste gasifier.
Where I live in New York the City of Albany is attempting to create an 11 county waste authority and to institute flow control. If they are successful, all of those counties will relinquish their control of their waste, a resource, for Albany's gain.
In New York a public authority can only be created by an act of our state legislature. The communities opting in can only opt out by consent of two consecutive state legislative
sessions. Representation on the authority's board of directors is based upon population and due to the fact that that the City of Albany has the largest population, they will control the decisions of the authority, an authority with the power of eminent domain and the power to issue publicly guaranteed bonds.
This becomes problematic for several reasons. No small community targeted by such an authority will have the power to overturn the authority's decision to site a waste disposal facility in their town because the 'greater good' of the population of the consortium communities outweighs the desire of a few in the targeted township should they object. Such a proposal could be a landfill or a waste incinerator. Also, such an authority does not have to respect local zoning or ordinances. They will get their way and there is little that can be done to stifle the plans of the authority.
Should a member
community of the authority find a cheaper means of disposal, flow control and the power of the authority prevents them from from doing so.
Yes, there are 'good' authorities, but they are the exception. From the year 2000 to 2010, 93.26% of our state debt was incurred by public authorities and only 6% of that debt had voter approval.
Our Mayor has been in office since 1994 and has been fiscally irresponsible. Recently they had an expansion of their landfill approved, which cost $41 million (bonds) and the expanded landfill will be filled by 2016. The gross from tipping fees has never exceeded $13 million and is now more realistically put at under $11 million. Landfill operations and collection costs bring the net down to around $2 million, but realistically it's really nearly a wash or even a loss. This city has deferred wise management decisions to find an alternative source of income and is
desperate for cash and with flow control established, the cash will flow into Albany's pocket.
An inter-municipal agreement could also establish flow control, and would allow an easy out for member communities, should they find a cheaper way to manage their waste, and Albany would have to float the bonds itself and would be solely responsible for their repayment.
To summarize: No control for localities of their waste management decisions or disposal costs; communities and taxpayers in the 10 counties locked into paying for the poor decisions of the controlling community; and a loss of their wealth from their own resources; and absence of competition.
More often than not, Authority and flow control are keywords for waste incineration.
Jim
Travers
From: Gary Liss <ga...@garyliss.com>
To: Eric Lombardi <er...@ecocycle.org>; Greenyes <Gree...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Gary Liss <ga...@garyliss.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:10 PM
Subject: RE: [GreenYes] Judge Issues Injunction Halting Dallas Flow Control
Richard Anthony
Feb 2, 2012, 7:03:57 PM2/2/12
to jat...@yahoo.com, ga...@garyliss.com, er...@ecocycle.org, Gree...@googlegroups.com
Hi James;
Maybe in Ne York.
The Authorities started in the eighties in California dealt with regional financing issues primarily landfills, recycling and composting. The Alameda County, San Luis Obispo, Del Norte Authorities are leaders in waste prevention, reduction, recycling and handling regulated materials.
In Vermont they are community forums.
What we need is to get information to these local leaders about the advantages of zero waste as a management approach..
Rick
James Travers
Feb 2, 2012, 11:32:10 PM2/2/12
to Richard Anthony, ga...@garyliss.com, er...@ecocycle.org, Gree...@googlegroups.com
Richard,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
It's not like I haven't been working on promoting ZW principles in our region!
I've pasted below my signature Albany's ZW Resolution that was passed in 2010. I've also attached a copy to this message.
I've pasted below my signature Albany's ZW Resolution that was passed in 2010. I've also attached a copy to this message.
But just because a resolution is passed, it doesn't mean it will be enforced. I'm working on this.
We are few, unpaid citizens doing our best to guide our policy makers in the right direction, but I'm sure you are aware how difficult that can sometimes be. Not all elected community leaders actually lead; many willingly follow wrong-minded politically powerful local or regional pied pipers unwittingly down an expensive, fiscally unsustainable dead-end path.
The Mayor of Albany is leading such a parade in our region. After learning a neighboring community had sold the management of their landfill to Waste Connections, he was quite upset. On his local weekly radio show he mentioned quite accidentally, I'm sure, because there was no mention of it in Albany's still unapproved Solid Waste Management Plan, that that would screw up his plan to build a half billion dollar waste facility. Now, you know as well as I that there's no transfer facility, resource recovery facility or landfill that would cost that much. He's heading towards the "low-hanging fruit," "a proven technology," an incinerator.
Sometimes you can lead a horse to water...
For all the good reasons I've previously mentioned, I'm opposed to the creation of an authority. Perhaps on another day in time with truly progressive leadership I would be promoting one, but not today. From my experience, when a community proposes the creation of a waste authority, it is only for reaching into our pockets without our permission for the money to build a waste incinerator of some sort or other.
We are few, unpaid citizens doing our best to guide our policy makers in the right direction, but I'm sure you are aware how difficult that can sometimes be. Not all elected community leaders actually lead; many willingly follow wrong-minded politically powerful local or regional pied pipers unwittingly down an expensive, fiscally unsustainable dead-end path.
The Mayor of Albany is leading such a parade in our region. After learning a neighboring community had sold the management of their landfill to Waste Connections, he was quite upset. On his local weekly radio show he mentioned quite accidentally, I'm sure, because there was no mention of it in Albany's still unapproved Solid Waste Management Plan, that that would screw up his plan to build a half billion dollar waste facility. Now, you know as well as I that there's no transfer facility, resource recovery facility or landfill that would cost that much. He's heading towards the "low-hanging fruit," "a proven technology," an incinerator.
Sometimes you can lead a horse to water...
For all the good reasons I've previously mentioned, I'm opposed to the creation of an authority. Perhaps on another day in time with truly progressive leadership I would be promoting one, but not today. From my experience, when a community proposes the creation of a waste authority, it is only for reaching into our pockets without our permission for the money to build a waste incinerator of some sort or other.
Did I forget to mention the recent announcement that a "privately funded" Waste Incinerator had recently been proposed to be built at the Port of Albany?
The article that originated this thread was published in Waste & Recycling News and omitted this, which the Waste Business News reported: ( http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20120201A.htm ) (Many links to past coverage of this issue here)
"The ruling is a setback for the city which planned to use the additional revenue to develop a novel material recovery facility and enhance its energy recovery from increased landfill gas and later from gasifying a portion of the non-recoverable waste."
Flow control provides the ample feedstock necessary to feed the ravenous appetites of Waste Incinerators or Gasifiers.
Eric, are you not aware that if flow control is ultimately upheld, that a waste gasifier will surely soon be in Dallas' future?
Jim Travers
~~~~~~~~~~
The article that originated this thread was published in Waste & Recycling News and omitted this, which the Waste Business News reported: ( http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20120201A.htm ) (Many links to past coverage of this issue here)
"The ruling is a setback for the city which planned to use the additional revenue to develop a novel material recovery facility and enhance its energy recovery from increased landfill gas and later from gasifying a portion of the non-recoverable waste."
Flow control provides the ample feedstock necessary to feed the ravenous appetites of Waste Incinerators or Gasifiers.
Eric, are you not aware that if flow control is ultimately upheld, that a waste gasifier will surely soon be in Dallas' future?
Jim Travers
~~~~~~~~~~
Resolution Number 54.51.10R(as amended)
RESOLUTION
OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TO ENSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE PERMITTING
THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE RAPP ROAD LANDFILL EASTERN EXPANSION THAT NO
FURTHER EXPANSION OCCURS AND TO IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO FURTHER THE PATH TOWARD ZERO WASTE
WHEREAS,
the applications and permitting to construct and operate an expansion
of the City’s existing landfill located on Rapp Road in the City of
Albany, together with mitigation related to the expansion, referred to
as Eastern Expansion, were reviewed and approved by the Common Council
in 2009; and
Whereas
the city is seeking approval of additional bonding resolutions with
respect to the construction and operation of the Eastern Expansion; and
WHEREAS,
since 1990 there have been multiple expansions of the Rapp Road
landfill, duly requiring the Common Council to approve certain
financings, permitting and other actions attendant to these expansions
to support construction and mitigation; and
WHEREAS,
each of the expansion approvals since 1990 have recognized the need for
a detailed and sustainable alternative to further landfill expansions;
and heretofore over the course of those 20 years the need for further
expansions has not dissipated and the Common Council is prepared to
undertake the necessary steps to address the City’s solid waste and
burgeoning financial issues; and
WHEREAS,
the present Eastern Expansion was approved under strict conditions by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to wit the
City of Albany is engaged in a long term planning process and that no further expansion would be permitted and authorized; and
WHEREAS,
the City of Albany serves as the lead agent for the Planning Unit
comprised of the cities, towns and villages that comprise the Capital
Region Solid Waste Management Partnership Planning Unit (“Planning
Unit”); and
WHEREAS,
the City of Albany, on behalf of the Planning Unit has issued a draft
Capital Region Solid Waste Plan (“the Plan”) to present a long range
solid waste strategy for the City of Albany and the municipalities that
comprise the Planning Unit; and
WHEREAS,
the Plan stresses the importance of a regional approach to solid waste
planning, and also acknowledges the present Planning Unit continues to
operate as an informal consortium with the City of Albany as lead
participant; and
WHEREAS,
the Common Council in its review and deliberations of the financing and
construction of the Eastern Expansion recognizes the critical need to
establish specific timetables for the letting of certain actions that
are vital to the City and the region to break the cycle of further
expansions and to institute a plan for a sustainable alternative to
landfill expansion; and
WHEREAS,
the Common Council in setting these plans wants to maximize economic
development opportunities to all of its citizenry and ensure that all
of the City’s economic infrastructure has been fully utilized; and
WHEREAS,
by implementation of these measures, the City of Albany, as lead
participant of the Planning Unit will be positioned to pursue all of
the federal and state funding opportunities available to support the
deployment of the latest technologies and job creation; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the
Albany Common Council offers these preliminary comments and
recommendations which will be evaluated prior to the adoption of the
final “Plan”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
the Common Council desires to establish specific Zero Waste goals for
the City of Albany tied to future landfill funding requirements such
that at the conclusion of the final expansion a fully actionable
program is underway in the Greater Albany Capital District these goals
shall specifically include the following detailed implementation
recommendations:
1. That
within one year of adoption of the long term plan achieve a total
Capital District recycling participation rate of 47% of the total
generated waste volume along with a discussion of single stream
recycling.
2. Achieve
a total Planning Unit waste diversion rate of 65% by 2016, to increase
the effectiveness of public education of recycling opportunities and
establishing a clear pathway to move the Capital District to Zero Waste.
3. Each
fiscal year, the City of Albany as lead agent shall work with the
Planning Unit to solicit capital investment from federal and state
grant funding opportunities and the private sector to construct and
operate this recycling and processing capacity in exchange for long
term commitment on waste stream. Successfully
obtaining such funding shall reduce the capital burden on the City of
Albany, as the host of the Rapp Road Landfill and other solid waste
facilities.
4. Establish
a long term natural Resource Recovery Park located at industrial
property in the Capital Region, for downstream product manufacturing
and energy recovery derived from diverted waste, creating green jobs
and strengthening the economic development of the District to be
operational no later than January 1, 2016.
5. Explore
the benefits of developing a Waste Conversion facility that would
further minimize landfill disposal, converting waste into green
products and green energy to be operational by January 1, 2016. Such
facilities should enter into a Host Community Agreement that provides a
revenue share for every ton diverted to recycling processing or energy
recovery.
6. The
City of Albany implement a pilot organics waste collection program to
enable the collection of commercial and/or institutional organic waste
in sufficient pilot scale quantities to be used in a pilot organics
waste conversion program. The pilot organics conversion program would
evaluate the economic and environmental performance of one or more
organic waste conversion technologies to be operational no later than
September 2012, pending DEC approval of such a facility. The pilot
program primary objectives would be to evaluate the efficacy of the
tested technology for use as a model to replicate throughout the
Capital District. In addition, explore the use of yard waste to advance composting capacity.
7. The
City of Albany 2011 Budget planning process must acknowledge and
reflect the diminishing capacity of the landfill as a revenue stream
over the course of the next five years. We urge
the Department of General Services to consider increasing the tipping
fees paid by commercial and Planning Unit haulers by a reasonable rate
of not less than five dollars with the goal of reaching a total
increase of ten dollars within five years. Revenue generated from this
rate increase will be reserved to cover the restoration and closing
costs. This method of financing is proposed to prevent the need for additional bonding. Finally, we must institute full cost accounting for landfill operations.
8. That
the City of Albany issue Requests for Proposal in accordance with these
conditions to accomplish the goals, objectives, and milestones set
forth in this Resolution such that the Request For Proposal requires
that the prospective vendor address specifically the importance of
community benefits including programs to foster community relations by
providing increased opportunities for area residents, particularly
minorities and women in employment and training; on the job training
and apprenticeship opportunities.
*Note: Council Members O’Brien, Commisso, Konev, Calsolaro, Golby, and Fahey spoke on resolution prior to passage.
Passed by the following vote of all the Council Members elected voting thereof:
Affirmative – Bailey, Calsolaro, Commisso, Conti, Fahey, Freeman, Herring, Igoe, Konev, O’Brien, Rosenzweig, Sano, and Smith
Present – Golby
Affirmative 13 Negative 0 Abstain 0 Present 1
From: Richard Anthony <rican...@aol.com>
To: jat...@yahoo.com; ga...@garyliss.com; er...@ecocycle.org; Gree...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:03 PM
Subject: [GreenYes] Flow Control
Karin Tome
Feb 3, 2012, 8:52:01 AM2/3/12
to James Travers, Richard Anthony, ga...@garyliss.com, er...@ecocycle.org, Gree...@googlegroups.com
From a novice in this field:
The leading problem in Maryland is the direction that their waste authority (the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority) takes. Here's their "authorizing" statement, which is all about "regional" and "incineration":
"For the benefit of the people of the State of Maryland, the increase of their commerce, welfare and prosperity, and the improvement of their health and living conditions, it is essential that provision be made for the efficient collection and disposal of waste on a regional basis from both public and private sources in compliance with State and federal laws, regulations, and policies and for the generation of energy and the recovery of useable resources from such waste to the extent practicable. It is the purpose of this subtitle to assist certain participating political subdivisions of this State, other public entities and the private sector of the economy to provide adequate waste disposal facilities (including those which provide for energy generation and resource recovery) and facilities for the generation of steam, electricity, or other forms of energy from fuels which are derived from or are otherwise related to waste disposal facilities by providing a regional coordinating agency and a financing vehicle for such facilities. It is the purpose of this subtitle to assist the participating counties to effect waste disposal programs on a regional basis and to that end this subtitle provides for the creation of the Authority. It is the intention and purpose of this subtitle that, without in any way limiting the discretion of the Authority, the Authority and the Maryland Environmental Service cooperate to the maximum extent practicable in effecting a regional waste disposal program in the participating counties."
Compare that with Alameda County's:
"The Authority is an independent agency established in 1976 to provide waste management planning and programs in Alameda County. The Authority‘s mission is to achieve the most environmentally sound waste management program for the people of Alameda County. It has served as a model for similar organizations nationwide."
I understand that it's a comparison between a county and a state, but WHAT a contrast!
Karin Tome
301-788-6035 (cell)
Zero-Waste = RETHINK what you discard: refuse, reduce, reuse....then recycle, rot (compost).....and redesign.
The leading problem in Maryland is the direction that their waste authority (the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority) takes. Here's their "authorizing" statement, which is all about "regional" and "incineration":
"For the benefit of the people of the State of Maryland, the increase of their commerce, welfare and prosperity, and the improvement of their health and living conditions, it is essential that provision be made for the efficient collection and disposal of waste on a regional basis from both public and private sources in compliance with State and federal laws, regulations, and policies and for the generation of energy and the recovery of useable resources from such waste to the extent practicable. It is the purpose of this subtitle to assist certain participating political subdivisions of this State, other public entities and the private sector of the economy to provide adequate waste disposal facilities (including those which provide for energy generation and resource recovery) and facilities for the generation of steam, electricity, or other forms of energy from fuels which are derived from or are otherwise related to waste disposal facilities by providing a regional coordinating agency and a financing vehicle for such facilities. It is the purpose of this subtitle to assist the participating counties to effect waste disposal programs on a regional basis and to that end this subtitle provides for the creation of the Authority. It is the intention and purpose of this subtitle that, without in any way limiting the discretion of the Authority, the Authority and the Maryland Environmental Service cooperate to the maximum extent practicable in effecting a regional waste disposal program in the participating counties."
Compare that with Alameda County's:
"The Authority is an independent agency established in 1976 to provide waste management planning and programs in Alameda County. The Authority‘s mission is to achieve the most environmentally sound waste management program for the people of Alameda County. It has served as a model for similar organizations nationwide."
I understand that it's a comparison between a county and a state, but WHAT a contrast!
Karin Tome
301-788-6035 (cell)
Zero-Waste = RETHINK what you discard: refuse, reduce, reuse....then recycle, rot (compost).....and redesign.
Alan Muller
Feb 3, 2012, 12:14:19 PM2/3/12
to James Travers, Gary Liss, Eric Lombardi, Greenyes
At 01:25 AM 2/2/2012 -0800, James Travers wrote:
>Eric,
>
>While I understand the rationale of wanting to have a municipality
>retain control of their waste and its disposal, the real reason for
>Dallas trying to mandate Flow Control is to eliminate competition
>for their resources in order to have ample feedstock for a planned
>waste gasifier.
>
>Where I live in New York the City of Albany is attempting to create
>an 11 county waste authority and to institute flow control. If they
>are successful, all of those counties will relinquish their control
>of their waste, a resource, for Albany's gain.
>Eric,
>
>While I understand the rationale of wanting to have a municipality
>retain control of their waste and its disposal, the real reason for
>Dallas trying to mandate Flow Control is to eliminate competition
>for their resources in order to have ample feedstock for a planned
>waste gasifier.
>
>Where I live in New York the City of Albany is attempting to create
>an 11 county waste authority and to institute flow control. If they
>are successful, all of those counties will relinquish their control
>of their waste, a resource, for Albany's gain.
[...]
>More often than not, Authority and flow control are keywords for
>waste incineration.
>
>Jim Travers
This is my impression also. Maybe things are different in CA.
Obviously, flow control, like other exercises of governmental power,
is neutral in and of itself, and can be used for good or malign
purposes. I don't see much value in discussing it outside of a
particular context. In some jurisdictions it may work.
But, it seems much easier to find examples of flow control used to
promote/protect incinerator schemes than recycling/zero waste
schemes. This isn't surprising considering the nexus of
profit/corruption a burner always represents.
Aside from the legal issues, not likely to go away, flow control
seems to me a failed policy experiment. Does it not make better
sense to legislate about what happens to the discards, rather than
the facilities they go to? Ie, requirements for
diversion/recycling. (In Minnesota, garbage policy people are
pushing for waste to be "processed." This can, of course, mean
recycling/composting (or just a trommel at the dump?) but what they
mostly mean by it is incineration.)
am
James Travers
Feb 3, 2012, 2:08:42 PM2/3/12
to Alan Muller, Gary Liss, Eric Lombardi, Greenyes
Yes, Alan, to me it would make more sense to legislate what happens to the discards rather than to which facility they are directed to.
I do see some sense in instituting flow control within the limited borders of municipality or region, though, but only if the costs, profits and savings is appropriately proportionally shared among participating communities affected by its enactment. Every community should be able to it's share of wealth in their waste.
What matters most, I suppose, is the intent behind its institution, as demonstrated in the comparison Karin provided between Maryland's Authority and Alameda's. Is it simply tonnage traffic that's desired or is it sound environmental reasoning that drives the decision?
Unfortunately,
there are those who believe the false rhetoric put forth by incineration proponents that theirs is an environmentally sound technology.
I should remind you that Albany's ZW resolution is just that, a resolution. It is not law. For those of you who can read between the lines, it's a precautionary measure laid down to help to offset future potential environmental and fiscal harm.
Jim Travers
From: Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net>
To: James Travers <jat...@yahoo.com>; Gary Liss <ga...@garyliss.com>; Eric Lombardi <er...@ecocycle.org>; Greenyes <Gree...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] Judge Issues Injunction Halting Dallas Flow Control
Helen Spiegelman
Feb 8, 2012, 8:11:34 AM2/8/12
to Karin Tome, James Travers, Richard Anthony, ga...@garyliss.com, er...@ecocycle.org, Gree...@googlegroups.com
Hi Karen,
The difference between these two policies is shocking indeed. However even the second one is based on the premise that "waste" is:
- a liability, rather than an asset
- a single entity, rather than a range of distinct entities that are more meaningfully understood separately than collectively
- an entity that originates within the jurisdiction (state, county), rather than being of a provenance well outside the place where it is "generated"
Even though the Alameda County policy doesn't mandate incineration as the decreed waste management system, it still reinforces the idea of "waste" as the business of waste management "programs," and the assumption that these programs will be delivered by the traditional Municipal Industrial Complex.
In the 1980s and 1990s we deconstructed "waste" by defining separate material categories loosely based on commodity types (paper, glass, plastics, etc.). This brought in "multi-material recycling" programs delivered by the Municipal Industrial Complex as an adjunct to garbage collection.
But even this is an oversimiplification that misses huge opportunities for economic, environmental and and social benefits.
To get to the root cause of "waste" and come up with preventative solutions we need to deconstruct waste along the lines of chains of custody, reinforcing an obligation that producers would have to ensure that their products/packaging do not get "wasted."
This would exert pressure on each individual component of "waste" to tend to its own needs throughout its life-cycle. This would create a "recycling" industry that was larger and more exquisitely diversified than the crude system practiced by the Municipal Industrial Complex.
Local authorities should be developing policies that create opportunities for specialized recyclers to provide services meeting the needs of producers who are no longer allowed to let their products/packaging become public liabilities.
Recyclers will have to acknowledge the limits to their control over discards, negotiating contractual arrangements with the producers who contributed the "value added" that is being conserved through returns/reuse/recycling.
H.
Check out The Campaign for Real Recycling
Check out The Zero Waste Blog
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages