Testimony of Mr. Dan Batts, President
Michigan Waste Industries Association
Michigan Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs; Michigan House Committee on Land Use and Environment
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
Lansing, Michigan
Good morning. It is my pleasure to have the opportunity again to address the two committees of the Michigan Legislature charged with considering issues involved with solid waste imported to Michigan from out of state. And again, I want to thank all of you for your leadership on this issue.
My name is Dan Batts. I am the president of the Michigan Waste Industries Association — MWIA, a statewide association of landfill and waste hauling companies.
My testimony last week focused on the benefits Michigan residents, communities, business and government entities receive due to the free flow of waste across borders. Any attempt to substantially disrupt this system — as is being proposed — will undermine the high level of service and standards Michigan citizens have come to expect.
Increased attention to the importation of solid waste to Michigan has set off a highly charged debate that has resulted in a number of bills being proposed, most of which call for increased regulations, penalties or fees. While the MWIA is opposed to these bills because they penalize Michigan residents, whose trash makes up 80 percent of the waste we dispose, we are sensitive to the issues raised by proposed legislation. We are committed to working with you to develop reasonable solutions that minimize any adverse impacts of imported solid waste.
I’d like to address several erroneous claims that were made during last week’s hearing and remind this gathering of lawmakers why waste moves across borders.
First, it is unrealistic to think the free flow of waste across borders will not continue. NAFTA and the Commerce Clause within the U.S. Constitution provide for this, and this is in the best interest of every Michigan resident, community, business and governmental body. Affordable, environmentally protective waste disposal options provide us with an extremely effective network of facilities that are highly responsive to people’s needs and goals.
Waste products have moved across state and international borders for many years — safely and without adverse impacts — when larger, state-of-the-art landfills replaced the old dumps of before. Today’s landfills are more protective of public health and the environment, but require substantial investments to cover construction, operation and management costs. Rigorous environmental protection and financial assurance costs compound the investments made by landfill operators.
By necessity, today’s regional landfills were designed to receive sufficient volumes, from greater geographic reaches, to generate revenues necessary to recover the investments made by private waste disposal companies. This system was viewed by federal and state officials to be the best solution to keep disposal costs affordable, inspire the development of innovative disposal options and recycling programs, contribute to the local economies of the communities where landfills would operate, and to ensure environmental protections.
Second, Michigan’s landfill capacity is not threatened. Our state is not being flooded, as some have suggested, with out of state waste. The MWIA estimates our potential landfill capacity at more than 50 years, even with the current volume of waste we receive from out of state.
Third, comparison of Michigan, border state and Ontario waste stream regulations demonstrates strong consistency across the region. Calls to ban out of state waste based on standards governing certain items, such as car batteries, household hazardous waste and yard waste are misplaced. More importantly, such laws would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Who would bear the burden of enforcing such laws? Certainly landfill owners and waste haulers would be unwilling to certify that residents or businesses in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Canada — or even Lansing, Michigan — have not tossed a random bag of grass clippings to the curb. Landfill operators would be forced to turn back to local officials in every community across this state to have them certify that trash generated by their residents was “clean.” How many of these local officials would be willing to accept that responsibility?
Last, an aggressive waste management plan by Ontario means a punitive fee based approach taken today will only hurt Michigan most long after this issue takes a back seat. The current volume of waste coming from Ontario and from Toronto is expected to peak in 2004, and begin declining in 2005 as plans are realized to divert waste from landfills. The current shipment of waste to Michigan landfills from Ontario is being made on a spot market basis, not as part of a long-term solution. While Michigan residents currently would pay approximately 80 percent of any fees levied on waste disposal, that percentage would increase as out of state waste imports recede to the typical levels experienced by nearly every state in the U.S.
In conclusion, bills currently pending represent bad public policy, make little economic sense and will severely hurt Michigan while doing little to hinder cross border movement of waste. The solution to the current perceived crisis is to open dialogue with Ontario and Toronto officials to encourage and assist them in expediting their own solutions. Michigan’s political pressure needs to be applied to reduce red tape on the other side of the border that stands in the way of immediate solutions to Ontario’s waste disposal crisis.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman for recognizing the participation of the MWIA on this issue. Tom Horton, MWIA Vice President, and I are pleased to answer any of your questions at this time.
###
