|
-
<br /> 0 '" r The law also contains a modest incentive for cities to develop
<br /> N..!�'
<br /> ,,a4,, waste abatement programs. Cities are eligible for allocations
<br /> -c` • = from the Landfill Abatement Fund of 50 cents per household for
<br /> �-• '" • . "For each 20 qualifying landfill abatement and resource recovery expenses
<br /> y e+ . y percent reduction that are included in the county master solid waste plan or are
<br /> `�r ` r•7► ii? in waste, three approved by the Metropolitan Council. Such amounts can be
<br /> -t • `� new landfills are
<br /> i , `••. most helpful when applied toward the more cost-effective pro-
<br /> le,r.r 4• pro-
<br /> ..., k. eliminated,"says grams such as yard waste composting and recycling.
<br /> • , --,...� �. Nelson. The other half of this fee goes into a Landfill Contingency i
<br /> ' Action Fund. This fund will be administered by the Minnesota 1
<br /> t e r . Pollution Control Agency and is to be expended for closure and i
<br /> d. \ ifi
<br /> \ . post-closure care and clean-up costs at qualifying sites. Part of
<br /> y this fund will be used by the Minnesota Department of Health to
<br /> monitor water quality in public water wells that may be affected
<br /> The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in a rough esti- by landfills.
<br /> mate, suggests that the closure,post-closure and remedial action Metro counties are allowed the option of imposing an addi-
<br /> capital costs associated with the 131 permitted landfills in Min- tional$.25 per cubic yard fee to generate funds for abatement or
<br /> nesota could run from$58.6 to$165.4 million with annual oper- to respond to landfill problems. While previously existing law
<br /> ating and maintenance costs at$4.5 to$8.2 million. These costs had directed the seven metro counties to develop solid waste
<br /> do not include those associated with the 1300 abandoned dumps, abatement plans,reluctance to impose an additional property tax
<br /> 200 active unpermitted dumps, hazardous waste sites or indus- burden to pay the initial costs had a chilling effect on the abate-
<br /> trial landfills. This leaves all the other costs - air pollution, in- ment commitment of a number of counties. These revenues will
<br /> creased service burdens on local governments, tax losses, de- be very useful to counties, helping them strengthen their com-
<br /> creased property values and nuisance impacts of noise and litter mitment to waste abatement implementation. There are prelimi-
<br /> totally unquantified. nary indications that the law has already begun to have the stim-
<br /> Burnsville, a metro suburb hosting a landfill, has already paid ulatory effects envisioned.
<br /> $255,000 to monitor and test for pollution of their groundwater. A city hosting a landfill can impose an additional $.15 per
<br /> The figure does not include city staff time and related costs. cubic yard to go to the city general fund to be spent defraying
<br /> Burnsville plans to spend $667,000 in 1984 to relocate wa- costs created for the city by the adverse effects of the landfill.
<br /> terwells because of landfill proximity. These costs are to be re- Many of these imposed costs have traditionally been borne by
<br /> covered by extra assessments on the cities water bills. the host city effectively becoming part of the hidden landfill
<br /> ilkThe real tragedy of these costs is that they amount to a public subsidy.Increased road maintenance,litter control,groundwater
<br /> bsidy of landfilling garbage. Had these costs been internalized pollution, air pollution, decreases in development or property
<br /> the landfill use cost, all abatement options would have ap- value and added fire and police services have been identified as
<br /> peared relatively more economical to decision makers. The hid- sources of these imposed costs. The city fee authority thus be-
<br /> den landfill subsidy becomes an effective disincentive to abate. comes an important step in more fully internalizing the true
<br /> As long as the hidden subsidy is ignored or accepted, we effec- costs of landfills.
<br /> tively impede natural economic forces from helping establish If the city and county imposed the maximum fees allowed
<br /> sound public policy in waste management. under the law, the dumping fee at the landfill would increase
<br /> The legislative action was designed as a three part lever to $.90 per yard. If this increased cost were passed on,the garbage
<br /> help shift public policy away from burial of garbage and into the bill of the average homeowner would be expected to increase
<br /> alternative waste handling strategies. By tightening abatement about $.06 per week.
<br /> planning requirements, increasing the landfill tip fee to more The law also gives non-metro counties optional authority to
<br /> fully internalize the costs of burying garbage and to make some impose a landfill fee to raise money for landfill cleanup or abate-
<br /> of the money so generated available for abatement, the law ment.
<br /> shifts the economic balance to allow more valid economic corn- Without additional abatement activities, the Minneapolis-St.
<br /> parison of the alternatives as well as to provide some financial Paul area will need the equivalent of 15 new landfills by the year
<br /> help in support of abatement. 2000. For each 20 percent reduction in waste, we eliminate the
<br /> The act imposes a fee on landfill operators in the seven county need for the equivalent of three new landfills.
<br /> metro area of$.50 per cubic yard of garbage accepted by the Often economic forces are the most potent factors influencing
<br /> landfill. This fee is expected to generate $2.6 million annually. public policy. Unfortunately, solid waste management decision-
<br /> Half of that amount goes into a Landfill Abatement Fund to be making has been done in a distorted economic context. Use of
<br /> administered by the Metropolitan Council,the regional planning general tax revenues to pay for part of the cost of landfilling
<br /> body. Money in the fund may be spent for solid waste planning does not correct the distortion.
<br /> assistance, grants and loans for resource recovery projects and The challenge to elected officials is to apply an inclusive de-
<br /> related public education and for market development for reuse- termination of landfilling costs and then set up the mechanics to
<br /> able or recyclable wastes. internalize this cost. In so doing economic forces are freed to
<br /> Private parties as well as government entities are eligible for more validly shape public policy in solid waste management.
<br /> 1 the grants and loans. The grants and loans may include the cost Perhaps the most important feature of the new Minnesota law is
<br /> f planning, acquisition of land and equipment, and capital im- that through the fee, it converts part of a hidden landfill subsidy
<br /> vements. Grants and loans for planning may not exceed 50 into an upfront cost of burying garbage. In so doing, it will
<br /> rcent of the planning cost. Other grants and loans may not make possible a more valid economic comparison between
<br /> exceed 50 percent of the cost of the project. Grants and loans to abatement options and landfilling.
<br /> 1 cities, counties or solid waste management districts must be for The anticipated outcome is a shift into a post landfill
<br /> projects that are in conformance with approved master plans. emphasis era. , ■
<br /> f _ 1 r,
<br /> 32 c/
<br /> {3�\ �y BioCycte
<br />
|