Topic: Solid Waste Disposal
Geographic Area: King County, Washington, USA
Focal Question: Can economic incentives be successfully used to control solid waste disposal and promote recycling?
Sources: The Environment Goes to Market, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC. pages. 113-138. July 1994.
http://www.wa.gov/ecology/swfa/5thannualintro.html 5/1/97
http://www.metrokc.gov/dur/swd/swdinfo/swdsvsg.htm 5/1/97
Reviewer: Robert T. Doak, Colby College '97
Review:

The issue of solid waste disposal has plagued many communities throughout the United States. In King County, Washington, this was the case in the 70's and early 80's when landfills were being filled at an alarming rate with little attention paid to the environmental consequences. As many of the landfills were closed due to full capacity, or closed due to environmental problems, more pressure was placed on the few remaining landfills. The largest and most frequently used of these was the facility in Cedar Hills, a small community in the northern part of the county.

In 1986 the county, whose population is comprised by Seattle and surrounding communities, was forced to immediately rethink its solid waste policies due to the closing of several disposal sites and the resulting shorter expected life of the remaining sites. Initially the idea of building incinerators was viewed as the best possible solution to the mounting problem of excessive sold waste.

In 1987 when the proposal was released, along with a list of possible incineration sites, citizen groups quickly formed to combat the proposed locations with a common "Not in my backyard" approach. By 1987 public sentiment caused local administrators to back away from their plan to build incinerators at four sites attempting to remedy the landfill dilemma. In 1989 the state legislature passed the "Waste Not Washington Act" that established waste reduction and recycling programs as the first two priorities of the solid waste program with incinerators as a back-up plan. To make this happen King County had to prepare a new local solid waste management plans to include waste reduction and recycling activities. Financial assistance was granted by the state to the county to aid in preparation for implementation of the new solid waste plans.

Immediately the county began to institute waste reduction programs and recycling efforts with a goal of 50% of all solid wasted being recycled by 1995. In the city of Seattle the goal was 65%. By 2000 the county as a whole set 65% recycling of solid waste as its goal. In order to accomplish this goal King County used a few different devices to reduce the flow of solid waste into the landfill.

The first and possibly the biggest economic incentive implemented was variable rate curbside pick-up. In this system a higher fee is charged for the second trash bin collected as opposed to a flat rate. The standard rate for King County is rates to be 40% higher for a two bin pick-up than a one bin pick-up. In the city of Seattle the mark-up for two bins is much higher at around 100%. Besides variable curb side pick-up, higher tipping fees provided similar incentive to increase recycling and reduce waste.

Tipping fees have risen four-fold in some sites since the early 1980's. The revenue collected at the landfills from the higher tipping fees were primarily used to clean-up existing landfills and create a reserve fund for incinerators. Revenues collected from the variable cost collection system went into the hands of the county or private firms who contracted out for waste disposal. The revenue collected by the county was used positively for expanding the administrative and field staff of the waste department along with new educational and research programs to reduce waste and promote recycling.

Another incentive arose from the dramatic increase in the amount of materials recycled. Unfortunately, markets for recyclables, such as green glass and newspapers, quickly became glutted making prices drop sharply. As a result, the county and state began efforts to develop markets for recycled goods. The future success solid waste disposal program in large part depends on whether or not markets can be developed.

One of the anticipated initial barriers to King County's campaign to promote recycling and reduce solid waste was the market to support recyclables was not large enough to handle the inflow of recyclable materials. Another barrier to the county was the lack of control over 40% of the waste stream because businesses could not be forced to participate in the program. The last concern was over the scarcity of information in regards to the steps taken by the waste reduction and recycling programs, dramatic differences in opinion exist in respect to their effectiveness.

The results of the new policies have been quite successful. In the span of 5 years between 1987 and 1992 the amount recycled increased from 18.3% to 35%. The tonnage of solid waste generated is expected to continue increasing as population increases, but this will be counteracted by an expected increase in recycling so that the total tonnage of solid waste disposal will decrease after 1992 and continue to do so for the next decade.

KING COUNTY MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FIGURES AND PROJECTIONS

YEAR	TONS GENERATED	TONS DISPOSED	TONS REDUCED/RECYCLED	PERCENT REDUCED/RECYCLED
1987	989,500	808,000	181,000	18.3
1988	1,038,500	813,000	225,500	21.7
1989	1,138,500	838,500	305,000	26.4
1990	1,258,500	890,500	368,000	32.1
1991	1,346,500	914,000	432,500	32.1
1992	1,410,000	916,500	493,500	35
1993	1,491,500	895,000	596,500	40
1994	1,578,000	868,000	710,000	45
1995	1,669,500	834,500	834,500	50
1996	1,766,000	830,000	936,000	53
italicized years indicate predicted figures

The 1995 goals of the county to achieve a 50% recycling rate was not reached, but the 43.5% recycling rate was by no means a disappointment for King County. In fact, many commodities are exceeding the 50% solid waste overall target recycling rate showing a broad base to the recycling effort. Some of the commodities include: ferrous metals 74%, newspapers 65%, and corrugated paper 62%. Commodities not achieving the 50% recycling rate goal included aluminum cans 47%, yard waste 49%, and non-ferrous metals 43%.

The types of solid waste entering the landfills of King County is changing as well. Previous to the "Waste Not Washington Act," moderate risk waste (MRW) constituted about 1% of the waste stream, which had potentially toxic effects on groundwater when disposed in landfills and on air when incinerated. Increased planning efforts, educational efforts, collection efforts, and fixed handling facilities for MRW as a result of the Waste Not Act have been successful in reducing the amount entering landfills. In 1995 almost 17 million pounds collected by the 39 fixed MRW facilities throughout the state.

The use of economic incentives has proven to be effective in the reduction of solid waste and the increase in recycling. Higher collection and tipping fees can be an effective way of raising revenues to financially support waste reduction plans and higher waste management budgets.