IN THIS SECTION

KNOW YOUR TRASH FACTS

About 80% of what Americans throw away is recyclable, yet our recycling rate is just 34%. (Environmental Protection Agency)

More than ½ million trees are saved each year by recycling paper in Boulder County. (Eco-Cycle)

By recycling more than 57,000 tons of steel cans, we reduce greenhouse gasses equivalent to taking more than 21,000 cars off the road each year. (WM)

Recycling glass instead of making it from silica sand reduces mining waste by 70%, water use by 50%, and air pollution by 20%. (Environmental Defense Fund)

If we recycled all of the newspapers printed in the U.S. on a typical Sunday, we would save 550,000 trees—or about 26 million trees per year. (California Department of Conservation)

The energy saved each year by steel recycling is equal to the electrical power used by 18 million homes each year—or enough energy to last Los Angeles residents for eight years. (Steel Recycling Institute)

The total volume of solid waste produced in the U.S. each year is equal to the weight of more than 5,600 Nimitz Class air craft carriers, 247,000 space shuttles, or 2.3 million Boeing 747 jumbo jets. (Beck)

An average kitchen-size bag of trash contains enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for 24 hours. (Covanta)

The solid waste industry currently produces more than half of America's renewable energy, more than combined energy outputs of the solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind power industries. (U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration)

Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 trees, 2 barrels of oil (enough to run the average car for 1,260 miles), 4,100 kilowatts of energy (enough power for the average home for 6 months), 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, and 60 pounds of air pollution. (Trash to Cash)

Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours, a computer for 3 hours, or a TV for 2 hours. (Environmental Protection Agency)

Glass can be recycled an indefinite number of times and never wears out. (National Recycling Coalition)

Making glass from recycled material cuts related air pollution by 20% and water pollution by 50%. (National Recycling Coalition)

If we put all of the solid waste collected in the U.S. in a line of average garbage trucks, that line of trucks could cross the country, extending from New York City to Los Angeles, more than 100 times. (Beck)

Five PET bottles (plastic soda bottles) yield enough fiber for one extra large T-shirt, one square food of carpet or enough fiber fill to fill one ski jacket. (National Recycling Coalition)

The average person has the opportunity to recycle more than 25,000 cans in a lifetime. (National Recycling Coalition)

Americans throw away enough office paper each year to build a 12-foot-high wall of paper from New York to Seattle. (National Recycling Coalition)

The average American discards seven and a half pounds of garbage every day. (National Recycling Coalition)

Once an aluminum can is recycled, it's back on the grocery shelf as another aluminum can in 60 days. (www.aluminum.org)

Americans throw away enough aluminum every three months to rebuild our entire commercial air fleet. (www.aluminum.org)

Tossing away an aluminum can wastes as much energy as pouring out half of that can's volume of gasoline. (www.aluminum.org)

Enough aluminum cans were recycled last year to fill a hollow Empire State Building 24 times. (www.aluminum.org)

The 62.6 billion cans recycled last year alone would make 171 circles around the earth at its equator. (www.aluminum.org)

Nearly 120,000 cans are recycled every minute nationwide. (www.aluminum.org)

Over the past 10 years, the number of aluminum cans recycled has doubled. (www.aluminum.org)

More than one million tons of aluminum containers and packaging are thrown away each year. (www.aluminum.org)

Recycling 1 ton of aluminum saves the equivalent in energy of 2,350 gallons of gasoline. This is equivalent to the amount of electricity used by the average home over a period of 10 years. (www.aluminum.org)

By using recycled aluminum instead of virgin ore, aluminum manufactures save enough energy needed to supply electricity to a city the size of Pittsburgh for about six years. (www.aluminum.org)

In 2010, the amount of paper recovered for recycling averaged 334 pounds for each man, woman, and child in the United States. (www.paperrecycles.org)

Every ton of paper recycled saves more than 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space. (http://earth911.org)

Recycling a four-foot stack of newspapers saves the equivalent of one 40-foot fir tree, that tree can filter up to 60 pounds of pollutants from the air each year. (www.ohiobaler.com)

More than 37 percent of the fiber used to make new paper products in the United States comes from recycled sources. (http://earth911.org)

86 percent (approximately 254 million) of Americans have access to curbside or drop-off paper recycling programs. (http://earth911.org)

Every month, we throw out enough recyclable glass bottles and jars to fill up a giant skyscraper. (www.recycling-revolution.com)

The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours. It also causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials. (www.recycling-revolution.com)

Every year, Americans throw away enough office and writing paper to build a wall 12 feet high, stretching from Los Angeles to New York City. (www.fairfaxcounty.gov)

Recycling 1 ton of paper uses 7,000 fewer gallons of water, saves 35% of the water pollution and 70% of the air pollution produced in making new paper, uses 4100 KWH less energy, and saves 390 gallons of oil. (www.ohiobaler.com)

If all the glass bottles and jars collected through recycling in the U.S. in one year were laid end-to-end, they would reach the Moon and half way back to the Earth. (www.fairfaxcounty.gov)

The volume of glass recycled by Americans in one year would fill New Jersey's Giants Stadium more than three times. (www.fairfaxcounty.gov)

Used plastic soda and juice bottles are used to make carpets, insulating materials in clothes and sleeping bags, strapping, scouring, pads, auto parts, paint brushes, bottles, and other things such as tennis balls! (www.fairfaxcounty.gov)

We can recycle plastic milk, water and detergent bottles to make new detergent and engine oil bottles, trash cans, flower pots, recycling bins, drainage pipes, park benches, playground equipment, traffic barrier cones, kitchen drain boards and combs! (www.fairfaxcounty.gov)

See more trash facts

STAY CONNECTED

Stay informed. Sign up here for electronic mailings of regular waste management industry news.

Flow Control of Solid Wastes

Flow control refers to state or local laws that direct where waste materials should be disposed or processed.

In October 2012, a federal district court in Texas issued a permanent injunction enjoining the City of Dallas from enforcing its flow control law. The court concluded Dallas' flow control law violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Due Course Provision of the Texas Constitution, and the Dallas City Code. The decision follows an earlier ruling by the court issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. NSWMA v. City of Dallas, No. 11-3200 (N.D. Tex., Jan. 31, 2012). The court has declined to embrace Dallas' interpretation of its authority under the Police Power, rejected Dallas' "proffered justifications" for the flow control law, and concluded the law was enacted as a revenue-raising measure. The decision underscores that despite the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in the United Haulers case (discussed below), there are constitutional limits to local governments' authority over solid waste management that courts will not hesitate to enforce.

A federal court in New York ruled Oswego County’s 2008 Flow Control Law was unconstitutionally vague, finding that “not only does the Flow Control Law in question authorize and encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, such arbitrary enforcement is manifest here.” JWJ Industries v. Oswego County, 794 F. Supp. 2d 211 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). The Court enjoined Oswego County from enforcing the flow control against plaintiffs until it corrected and clarified the law, addressing the shortcomings as set forth in the June 2011 order. Oswego County amended the 2008 Flow Control Law in December 2011. In February 2012, plaintiffs moved for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction with respect to enforcement of the 2011 Law against them. The Court granted the TRO in March 2012 and granted the preliminary injunction in April 2012.

C&A Carbone Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York in 2008, challenging Rockland County's flow control law. Rockland County's law requires haulers to bring waste and recyclables originating in the county to County-owned, privately-operated facilities. This is outside the express scope of the Supreme Court's decision in the United Haulers case, and may result in the first post-United Haulers federal court decision to address this issue. Discovery in the case concludes in late 2012 and summary judgment motions are expected to be filed in early 2013.

On April 30, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United Haulers Association Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330 (2007) that local governments are permitted to engage in flow control to government-owned and operated disposal facilities in specific circumstances. The Court concluded that flow control laws that favor government-owned and operated disposal facilities do not discriminate against interstate commerce, and are reviewed under a more lenient Pike balancing test. The Court's decision narrows the impact of the Court's Carbone decision in 1994 (see below). Some public sector advocates and officials argue that the court's 2007 decision does not preclude flow control to publicly-owned, privately-operated disposal facilities.

In August 2008, a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania reversed a lower court decision that had struck down a flow control law, and remanded the case for analysis under the Pike balancing test. Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc. v County of Lebanon, No. 06-3473 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2008). In March 2008, a federal district court in Georgia, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's United Haulers decision, upheld a flow control law directing waste to county-owned and county-operated landfill. See Quality Compliance Services, Inc. v. Dougherty Cty., No. 05-CV-19 (M.D. Ga.) (Mar. 31, 2008). That same month, a federal district court in Pennsylvania enjoined a county flow control law directing waste to a county-owned but privately-operated transfer station. NSWMA v. Delaware County Solid Waste Authority, No. 08-CV-1170 (E.D. Pa).

The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994) that flow control violates the "dormant" Commerce Clause. Between 1994 and 2007, several exceptions to this general principle have developed. The scope of these exceptions, and their application to specific factual circumstances involving solid waste, continue to be litigated in the federal courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the United Haulers case resolved a split between the Second Circuit and Sixth Circuit concerning whether flow control laws that benefit government-owned and operated waste disposal facilities are subject to more lenient review under the Commerce Clause than similar laws benefiting privately-owned or operated waste disposal facilities. The case involved flow control laws enacted by a waste authority in New York. The flow control laws were initially struck down by a federal district court applying Carbone but a federal appeals court (Second Circuit) ruled flow control laws that designate government-owned disposal facilities are subject to the lenient Pike balancing test, and not the "virtually per se illegal" test applied by the Supreme Court to strike down Clarkstown, New York's flow control law in the Carbone case. The Second Circuit concluded the benefits of the flow control law outweigh any possible burden on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in its April 30, 2007 opinion.

The principal briefs filed by the United Haulers Association and Oneida-Herkimer, and the amicus brief filed by NSWMA in support of United Haulers are here:

The American Bar Association's website contains additional information about the case, including copies of all the amicus briefs filed in the case.

Other federal courts had expressly declined to follow the Second Circuit's Court of Appeals reasoning in United Haulers. In January 2006, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a federal district court ruling that a Kentucky county's flow control law was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, specifically rejecting the public/private distinction invented by the Second Circuit in United Haulers. In NSWMA v. Daviess County, 424 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2006), the appeals court firmly stated it "respectfully disagrees with the Second Circuit on the proposition that Carbone lends support for the public-private distinction drawn by that court." The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the Sixth Circuit's decision, and the lawsuit has been dismissed.

Between the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Carbone and its 2007 decision in United Haulers, lower courts developed several exceptions to the Carbone principle that flow control laws are "per se" invalid.

Non-Discriminatory Flow Control Exception

These decisions hold that if the process by which local governments selected specific service providers or facilities is non-discriminatory, then requiring the use of these providers or facilities does not violate interstate commerce.

Maharg, Inc. v. Van Wert Solid Waste Management District, 249 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2001).
Houlton Citizens Coalition v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 1999)
Harvey & Harvey, Inc. v. Chester County, 68 F.3d 788 (3d Cir. 1995)

Market Participant Exception

These decisions consider whether a government entity is a "market participant" instead of a regulator, so that the government entity is not subject to the "strict scrutiny" test set forth in the Carbone decision and other cases.

Southern Waste Systems, LLC v. City of Delray Beach, No. 04-13035 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2005) (exclusive franchise does not violate Commerce Clause; whether local government bills customers under such a franchise is not relevant to inquiry).
Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Warren County, 213 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2000)
Sal Tinnerello & Sons v. Town of Stonington, 141 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1998)
NSWMA v. Williams, 146 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 1998)
USA Recycling, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 66 F.3d 1272 (2d Cir. 1995)
SSC Corp. v. Town of Smithtown, 66 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 1995)

Intrastate Flow Control Exception

These decisions consider whether government laws directing all solid waste to specific in-state facilities, but allowing such waste to be processed at out-of-state facilities, implicate the Commerce Clause.

IESI Ar. Corp. v. Northwest Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist.,433 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 2006)
On The Green Apartments L.L.C. v. City of Tacoma, 241 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2001)
U&I Hauling v. City of Columbus, 205 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2000)
Ben Oehrleins and Sons & Daughters, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 15 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir. 1997)
Randy's Sanitation v. Wright County, GS F. Supp.2d 1017 (D. Minn. 1999)
Coastal Carting Ltd., Inc. v. Broward County, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (S.D. Fla. 1999)
Waste Management of Michigan v. Ingham County, 941 F. Supp. 656 (W.D. Mich. 1996)
Vince Refuse Service, Inc. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management District, No. 93-319 (S.D. Ohio 1995)

Economic Flow Control Exception

These decisions consider whether using market forces such as fees to encourage solid waste to favored facilities violates the Commerce Clause or applicable state solid waste laws.

Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc. v. City of Lincoln, 269 Neb. 855 (May 27, 2005) ($7.00 per ton tax imposed on all haulers who tip waste in Nebraska "is not a burden on interstate commerce")
Oxford Associates v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery Cty, 271 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2001) ($76.25 per ton generator fee "offends the Commerce Clause")
City of Paterson v. Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 164 N.J. 270 (2000) (striking down NJ waste fees imposed to incentivize use of favored waste facilities, on state law grounds)
Zenith/Kremer Waste Systems, Inc. v. Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, 572 N.W. 2d 300 (Minn. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1145 (1998) (upholding $28 per ton waste fee coupled with $24 per ton reduction in tip fee as not violated Commerce Clause)

EIA is the trade association that represents the private sector solid waste and recycling industry through its two sub-associations, the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) and the Waste Equipment Technology Association (WASTEC).