Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Ben Oehrleins and Sons and <br />Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin <br />County, 115 F.3d 1372 (8th <br />Cir. 1997). <br />City of Philadelphia v. New <br />Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978). <br />United Haulers Assn, Inc. v <br />Oneida -Herkimer Solid <br />Waste Management Auth., <br />550 U.S. 330 (2007). <br />LSP Transmission Holdings, <br />LLC v. Sieben, 954 F.3d <br />1018, 1026 (8th Cir. 2020). <br />General Motors Corporation <br />v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 306 <br />(1997). <br />Paul's Industrial Garage, Inc. <br />v. Goodhue County, No. 21- <br />2614 (8th Cir. 2022). <br />Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.83- <br />115A.86. <br />Minn. Stat. § 115A.83. Minn. <br />Stat. § 115A.03, subds. 27 <br />and 28. <br />Flow control ordinances may raise constitutional issues under the Commerce <br />Clause of the United States Constitution if they interfere with the flow of <br />interstate commerce. <br />Courts have recognized a distinction under the Commerce Clause that <br />generally allows municipalities more authority to take actions affecting solid <br />waste if they are acting as a "market participant" instead of as a government <br />regulator. When a municipality is providing for or contracting for waste <br />management services, it generally is thought to be acting as a market <br />participant. <br />The dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from implementing <br />regulations that favor in -state economic interests by burdening out-of-state <br />competitors. However, Courts have found that local governments may <br />provide differential treatment to entities that perform different services in the <br />same market as long as no actual or prospective competition exists. For <br />example, a county ordinance that requires waste be made into refuse -derived <br />fuel (RDF) and transferred to a state -run energy plant instead of contracting <br />an out of state entity that transfers waste to a landfill does not violate the <br />dormant Commerce Clause because the out-of-state entity performs a <br />different service. <br />State law authorizes counties or sanitary districts to adopt a designation <br />ordinance requiring that all solid waste generated within a specific <br />geographic area must be delivered to a specific solid waste facility. A <br />designation ordinance does not apply to the following materials: <br />Materials separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their <br />original form or for use in manufacturing processes. <br />Materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the <br />capacity in operation at the time that the designation plan is approved by <br />the commissioner of the MPCA. <br />Materials that are separated at a permitted transfer station located within <br />the boundaries of the designating authority for the purpose of recycling <br />the materials if either: (1) the transfer station was in operation on Jan. 1, <br />1991; or (2) the materials were not being separated for recycling at the <br />designated facility at the time the transfer station began separation of the <br />materials. <br />Recyclable materials that are being recycled, and residuals from <br />recycling if there is at least an 85 percent volume reduction in the solid <br />waste processed at the recycling facility and the residuals are managed <br />as separate waste streams. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: <br />City Solid Waste Management <br />6/9/2022 <br />Page 8 <br />