Thanks for this additional input, Ryan.
Are you saying that the failure of haulers to comply with the older
requirement resulted in shifting the onus from the haulers to the
business generators? What will be the enforcement measures?
Helen.
At 07:13 AM 7/18/2007, Bailey. Ryan wrote:
Here in
Sacramento, CA, we now have mandatory business recycling. State law
requires cities and counties to divert 50% of the waste generated in
their jurisdiction from landfill disposal. This can be accomplished
through direct public agency programs and private sector efforts.
Diversion is accomplished through residential, multifamily, and
commercial programs. For ten years, non-exclusive franchised
commercial waste haulers in Sacramento have been required by local
ordinance to recycle 30% of what they collect from commercial accounts.
This 30% requirement has been based on tonnage, with no requirements for
diverting specific commodities. The current commercial recycling
rate is estimated to be only 15 to 20 percent, with only one in five
businesses have a recycling program available. Instead of requiring
the haulers to divert waste, the regulatory requirement has been shifted
to the business generators to require them to recycle designated
recyclable materials if generating four cubic yards of garbage per
week. See news item below.
Recycling Means Good Business!
The Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA) has adopted a new
Business Recycling Ordinance that requires businesses in the City of
Sacramento and the unincorporated area of Sacramento County to keep
designated recyclables including cardboard, office paper and beverage
containers separate from the garbage.
All businesses and all non-residential properties who subscribe to
garbage service of four (4) cubic yards or greater per week are required
to have a recycling program. For information and resources, see the SWA
Business Recycling website at
http://www.sacramentoswa.com/business.html.
Ryan Bailey
Sacramento
County
Business Environmental Resource Center
916-649-0173 direct
916-216-5622 cell
916-649-0202 fax
www.sacberc.org
From: GreenYes@no.address
[mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
On Behalf Of Pete Pasterz
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:15 AM
To: Helen Spiegelman
Cc: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill
may bevoted on soon in House
Helen--
I don't agree
that bans and collection mandates necessarily lead to the same
outcome...here in North Carolina, we have several banned items, but
voluntary provision of recycling services by local communities, and
voluntary citizen participation. Those municipalities that don't
provide service, or that provide inferior programs have a majority of the
banned items still going to landfill. Even in Mecklenburg
County, which has [had] been an early leader in recycling and education
programs, more materials, including banned ones like aluminum cans, go to
the landfill than the MRF. If there were some [any]
enforcement of the bans, this may have the desired effect of directing
the materials to a recycling stream...or to a roadside dump, depending on
the incentives given to the generators.
So, the
combination of bans and voluntary programs is not optimizing recycling
here. I'm not sure that mandates would necessarily change this,
without also a framework for a better focus on economic and intrinsic
incentives to generators. The financial incentives don't
necessarily need to be PAYT-type rewards/penalties, or RecycleBank
coupons; they could also be product/packaging costs which reflect their
impacts...
Pete
Pasterz
Cabarrus County, NC
From: GreenYes@no.address
[mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:40 PM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill
may bevoted on soon in House
Importance: Low
I am interested in the dualism
of "mandatory recycling" and "disposal bans" which
lead to the same outcome. Does anyone have experience that compares the
effectiveness of the two approaches?
Helen Spiegelman
At 08:52 AM 6/21/2007, Reindl, John wrote:
This is great news ! Wisconsin has had mandatory recycling in place since
the early 1990's and, while not perfect, it has worked very well. Without
mandatory recycling, I doubt that we would have the economies of scale
for either collection, processing, or marketing.
Best wishes,
John Reindl
Dane County, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address
[mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On
Behalf Of RicAnthony@no.address
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:17 AM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may be
voted on soon in House
Published: Jun 19, 2007 - 11:19:49 pm EDT
Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may be voted on soon in
House
By Drew Volturo, Delaware State News
DOVER -- Lawmakers pushing two separate curbside residential recycling
bills have reached a compromise on legislation that would be mandatory
and charge a $3 per ton assessment on solid waste.
The measure, a combination of two bills that had their supporters and
detractors, was being shopped around Legislative Hall Tuesday and could
find its way to the House of Representatives floor for a vote soon.
"We have been doing voluntary recycling for several years and can't
get much above 15 percent (participation among residents)," said
Rep. Pamela S. Maier, R-Newark, who is sponsoring the compromise
legislation.
"I don't want folks to be afraid of the word 'mandatory,' which
always raises red flags."
Rep. Maier originally sponsored a bill that would mandate curbside
residential recycling, while Gov. Ruth Ann Minner backed legislation
calling for voluntary recycling and setting up a $3 per ton
assessment.
The compromise measure incorporates many of the tenets of the
Minner-backed legislation, including the assessment, which would create a
fund to help with startup costs associated with recycling programs, and
the establishment of recycling goals.
Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control John A. Hughes
said his department could live with the mandatory recycling bill, but he
prefers the original voluntary measure because it would be more palatable
to legislators and residents.
"We agree with getting recycling started, planting the seeds,"
Mr. Hughes said.
"We will reach the point when the majority of people see how well
recycling functions and the costs are balanced out by large-scale
participation."
Then, Mr. Hughes said, adopting a mandatory system would be less
controversial.
He noted that his hometown of Rehoboth Beach has implemented voluntary
curbside recycling through Delaware Solid Waste Authority and many of his
neighbors already have signed up for the program.
Mr. Hughes said he is concerned that mandatory recycling might not pass,
and the voluntary proposal might end up on the cutting room floor as
well.
Clean Air Council community outreach director James Black said he would
have preferred a mandatory recycling bill without the assessment, which
is estimated to cost the average household 38 cents a month.
"Mandatory recycling is not as much of a problem as it used to be
because people realize to reach the goals we set, it has to be
mandatory," Mr. Black said.
"It's better to have a compromise bill now because every year we
wait, the trash in the landfills is going to pile that much
higher."
But Delaware Solid Waste Authority CEO Pasquale "Pat" Canzano
said not establishing the assessment while requiring recycling creates an
unfunded mandate, which often is difficult to meet.
"(The bill) provides the ability for public and private entities to
apply for grants for recycling programs, which should increase the amount
of recycling," Mr. Canzano said.
Under the legislation, a recycling fund would be established and financed
by a $3 per ton assessment on all solid waste -- excluding recyclables --
collected and/or disposed of in Delaware.
That money, Deputy DNREC Secretary David Small said, would be available
to private companies, municipalities and community organizations as
startup funds for recycling programs and could be used to purchase
equipment, such as a truck or recycling containers.
Once a local government reaches a recycling rate of 30 percent, it would
not be assessed the $3 a ton surcharge.
"At some point, around 30-40 percent recycling, towns would be
saving enough in tipping and disposal fees to cover recycling
costs," Mr. Small said.
But how would the mandatory component of the legislation be
enforced?
Rep. Robert J. Valihura Jr., R-Wilmington, a sponsor of the original
voluntary recycling bill and co-sponsor of the compromise measure, said
there are mechanisms in place to ensure the program's success.
Refuse brought to a landfill already is inspected for contraband,
asbestos and other contaminants. If trash haulers start bringing in
refuse with too many recyclables, the landfills would reject the loads
and could fine the haulers, Rep. Valihura said.
DSWA and DNREC, he said, would develop the exact process.
The measure carries the goal of increasing Delaware's recycling from 15
percent to 30 percent recycling by 2010 and 51 percent by 2015.
Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at newszap.com.
Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296
or
dvolturo@no.address.
See what's free at
AOL.com.
DISCLAIMER:
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO EMAIL DISCLAIMER:
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential,
and
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
review,
copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by
other
than the County of Sacramento or the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
immediately
and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and
any
attachments thereto.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|