GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may bevoted on soon in House

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


Ryan Bailey

Sacramento County

Business Environmental Resource Center

916-649-0173 direct

916-216-5622 cell

916-649-0202 fax

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




I don't agree that bans and collection mandates necessarily lead to the same 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

Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296 or dvolturo@no.address.

See what's free at

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.

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.

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]