Intergovernmental Approaches
To Solid Waste Management
ACTION
PLAN
-------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL APPROACHES
TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
This report (SW-47ts) was written by
RICHARD 0. TOFTNER
and
ROBERT M. CLARK
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 30 cents
-------
FOREWORD
Since passage of the original Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public
Law 89-272, Title II) in October 1965, there has been considerable dis-
cussion about what organizational form a solid waste management system
should take. It is obvious from even a cursory study that most solid
waste management systems have been operated haphazardly and scarcely
deserve to be called "systems" because responsibilities are so fragmented
The lack of a proper organizational framework having adequate power at
an overall jurisdictional level adds to the problem. It is clear,
therefore, that one of the most important ways to solve solid waste
problems is to define and structure an effective and efficient system
and to set it within an appropriate overall organizational framework.
The purpose of the following paper is to examine the basic organi-
zational requirements of solid waste management systems and then relate
them to the intergovernmental coordination mechanisms that are available
for fulfilling such requirements within regional configurations. The
primary objective is to outline an "integrated management system" that
includes planning, organization, operations, and control on a rational
regional basis.
--RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
-------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL APPROACHES TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Because solid waste problems transcend governmental boundaries,
many have suggested that regional systems be used to solve them. This
approach often has merit, but the regional concept has not been suffi-
ciently explained. In addition, the magnitude of the ideal region,
or what defines it, is not clear. Does it embrace only a major urban
area, such as a heavily populated Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) or can it include part of the hinterland too? Can it be
a group of rural counties, or a network of cities and villages within
those counties? Perhaps even a group of States could constitute a solid
waste management region. But whatever the criteria used—geographic,
demographic, hydrologic, economic, or community of interest — regions
will include several contiguous political entities and will inevitably
present an intergovernmental problem if functional unification is attempted.
When a "regional approach" is followed, the problem should, therefore,
be viewed as being more one of intergovernmental coordination than region-
al ism.
Many of our other urban problems, and a number of nonurban ones
as well, overlap governmental boundaries and can be considered regional
if intergovernmental repercussion is the criterion. This fragmentation
of authority and responsibility is a problem of such critical importance
-------
that it must be solved before we can hope to find answers to the problems
of pollution, crime, dwindling urban finances, housing, poverty, and
transportation. They all have intergovernmental threads, but simply saying
so is not enough. Neither is it necessary to discuss at length the
often-mentioned benefits that accrue from approaching intergovernmental
problems on an intergovernmental basis: (1) savings in public expendi-
tures by avoiding duplication of services; (2) reduction of unit costs
by spreading expenditures over more users of services; (3) better over-
all -planning and managing for both short- and long-term results.
The difficulty is that these intergovernmental organizational forms
have not been easy to apply to the specific problem of solid waste man-
agement. There is, however, no shortage of intergovernmental mechanisms
to investigate—in fact, they abound in local government. We have spe-
cial districts, authorities, and utilities for one purpose or another
as well as joint power and service agreements. Our ingenuity has been
stretched in devising methods of providing intergovernmental contractual
services, as in the Lakewood Plan in Los Angeles County, California.
There have been experiments in metropolitan government mergers, such
as Miami-Dade County, Florida, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee,
Jacksonvi1le-Duval County, Florida, and Unigov in Indianapolis-Marion
County, Indiana. Some intergovernmental arrangements have already been
successful in solid waste management, such as the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts and the county-wide system operated by Orange County,
California.
-------
We also have numerous metropolitan planning organizations, the
most recent being Councils of Governments (COG's), throughout the Nation.
Many of these agencies are single purpose operational entities, and
some are empowered to perform several municipal-type functions on an
intergovernmental basis. Planning agencies and COG's can often only
recommend action, but others have the power to regulate, and some even
house operational units for plan implementation. For example, the unique
Minnesota Metropolitan Council serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA
(seven counties and the Twin Cities) is both an agency created to coordi-
nate the metropolitan area's planning ^nd development and to implement
the Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer Plan.1'2 The Council's broad responsi-
bility to prepare a comprehensive development guide for the seven-county
area covers policy statements, goals, standards, and programs; it also
issues guides for an orderly and economic area development, both public
and private. These consider physical, social, and economic needs and
developments that will affect the entire area. The latter include resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial growth, parks, open land, airports,
highways, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools and
other public buildings, sewers, and solid waste disposal facilities.
The Council prepares and modifies the Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer
Plan and appoints the Metropolitan Sewer Board to implement it. Budget
approval also rests with the Council. Through its operating system,
the Sewer Board constructs and operates necessary facilities and allo-
cates costs among municipalities in the metropolitan service area. Each
municipality is billed by the Board according to the extent of service
-------
provided. Municipalities raise revenue to pay these bills by imposing
user charges within their jurisdictions; they are often applied as sur-
charges to water bills.
The Council must prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan for disposal
of solid waste in the metropolitan area. It does not actually implement
the plan, but it exerts considerable influence. Implementation is the
responsibility of each of the seven counties, which are legally obligated
to follow the plan.
This is, of course, a special case, and it is not necessarily adapt-
able elsewhere in the nation. Each area will have to adopt mechanisms
that are acceptable to its participants and adaptable to the specific
organizational framework involved.
Organizational Requirements
The ultimate success or failure of any solid waste management system
is realized at the operational level. The day-to-day implementation
of technology and public service objectives requires an efficient and
effective basic organization. Therefore, six points crucial to the de-
velopment of an organization for solid waste management should be pointed
out: (1) It should be designed to achieve planned objectives; (2)
it should have authority and responsibility appropriate to the task
at hand; (3) it should fit both legally and logically into the overall
jurisdiction of which it is a part; (A) it must have adequate numbers
of qualified personnel; (5) it must have adequate capital and operating
finances; (6) it should be an integrated system that concerns itself
-------
with storage, collection, transportation, disposal, and possibly reclama-
tion and reuse of solid waste materials.
In summary, the overall objective should be to develop an organiza-
tion that is capable of responding to the needs of solid waste management.
It should have the strength, resources, and flexibility to initiate activr
ties and effect changes that will improve the system and the delivery of
services to consumers within a healthful and livable environment.3
Regional Configurations
In order for these objectives to be achieved at the regional opera-
tional level a suitable overall jurisdictional framework must be employed.
After one has been established, appropriate intergovernmental operating
organizational forms can be adapted.
The basic intergovernmental arrangements or configurations developed
and examined in this paper are urban, rural, and statewide regions. They
are defined in light of the following characteristics: (l) the existence
of legally established regional boundaries; (2) the presence of estab-
lished transportation corridors that outline or connect various points;
(3) geographic or topographic features; (4) agglomerations of municipal
corporations with contiguous boundaries; (5) density and distribution
of population.
All of these characteristics are usually closely related. For
example, an established region often has clusters of populated areas
within municipalities that are connected by transportation corridors.
Regions are also frequently delineated by legislative or administrative
-------
action. Hills, rivers, or lakes might further serve to outline a region
and limit its boundaries. These often-related characteristics should
be considered when developing proposals for solid waste management
regions. Sometimes regionalization might not be the answer, for example
if the population centers are widely separated.
Urban Regions. Urban regions have definite legal boundaries that
are coterminous with those of one or more counties. The regions usually
encompass several municipalities that have contiguous boundaries and
are highly populated. Urban regions might include muncipalities in
more than one State. Major urban regions in the nation now cover some
200,000 square miles, and the total will be about 3^0,000 by the year
2000.
One of the most common types of urban region is the SMSA. A Council
of Government (COG) jurisdiction, a metropolitan planning area, or an
area-wide sanitation district covering all or major portions of an SMSA
might meet the definition of an urban region. Although an SMSA and
a COG are not usually operating jurisdictions, they offer convenient
and relevant delineations within which operating jurisdictions can be
established. On the other hand, these areas are already a patchwork
of districts, municipalities, and overlapping units. Therefore, when
such established area-wide operating agencies as utility districts,
authorities, and sanitation districts exist in urban regions, their
use in a solid waste management system should be considered. Perhaps
they will need only slight modifications to accommodate solid waste
activities within their structures. This would prevent the proliferation
-------
of additional units. Where suitable area-wide jurisdictions do not
exist, they should be established using available joint mechanisms or
by encouraging the State to authorize such mechanisms.
Rural Regions. Although they are outside metropolitan areas, rural
regions sometimes approach urban areas in population densities. A typical
rural region has at least one city of less than 50,000 people that is
surrounded by smaller municipalities. The region usually contains farms,
some forested tracts, and perhaps mines. Its boundaries may be coterminous
with those of a county or a group of counties. In fact, it is advantageous
to so establish them because this provides a ready-made legal governmental
entity for the installation of a solid waste management system. Economic,
population, and geographic relationships are also more easily maintained.
Rural regions offer better opportunities for establishing intergovernmental
solid waste management systems than metropolitan areas because they
have fewer active conflicting governmental units. Townships, for example,
are not normally active in rural regions, but in metropolitan areas
they are often incorporated and add to governmental fragmentation. In
addition, rural regions will usually have more open land for use as
sites for transfer stations, disposal areas, reusable material storage
yards, and reduction facilities.
Statewide Interstate Regions. No statewide interstate regions
exist, but in concept they would consist of the entirety of two or more
contiguous States that possess a large degree of economic, cultural,
administrative, and functional homogeneity.4
-------
Depending upon the purpose, any number of States could be selected
to form a statewide interstate region. California, for example, might
be combined with Washington and Oregon in one arrangement and with Arizona
and Nevada in another. The Bureau of the Census uses regional groupings
of States to collect and analyze its data. The North Central census
region, for example, includes 12 States from Ohio and Michigan to North
Dakota and Kansas.
Planners of solid waste management operating systems in statewide
interstate regions should remember that several hundred intergovernmental
units might be involved in addition to each State. It would be difficult
to develop agreement for establishing regions on such a broad basis
because interlocal and contractual arrangements applicable to both urban
and rural regions may not be appropriate. In this situation, interstate
compacts would probably be required. Although there are precedents
for this approach, none has included several States in their entirety.
For example, the well-known Port of New York Authority, established
by interstate compact in 1921, carries on varied and extensive operations
only in the New York City-New Jersey area. Water basin agreements,
such as the Delaware River Basin Commission Compact, which includes
parts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, probably
provide a better analogy since a larger relevant area is involved. In
addition, the objectives of controlling pollution and conserving re-
sources can be more easily related. One of the most famous large-scale
environmental-oriented regional formations in the Nation is the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). Operating under legislation enacted in 1933,
TVA covers a territory of some 80,000 square miles.
8
-------
Regional planning and operations in the United States have had
their fullest expression in the work of TVA in its basin-wide planning
for the development of water resources. Plans have been translated
into water management, encouragement of navigation, production of hydro-
electric power that has resulted in substantial economic development,
reforestation, erosion control, pollution control, public health, and
recreational development.5
Maximum Operational Authority
As mentioned earlier, intergovernmental mechanisms have been used
with varying success for several purposes in both interlocal and inter-
state areas. Their use has, however, been generally limited to a single
function and often to only a portion of an urban region, rural region,
or statewide interstate region. In most cases, the agreements could
have rationally extended to include the total region.
Intergovernmental mechanisms have been used for sewer and water
services and facilities, hospitals, governmental buildings, pol'ce and
fire protection, and even solid waste systems. Most of these mechanisms
have not, however, been established according to the concept introduced
here—maximum operational author! ty--for solid waste management. In
essence, this approach states that, wherever possible, a solid waste
management system should be installed throughout an entire region and
operated universally on an integrated management basis. Everyone would
receive solid waste service. In a rural region of three counties, for
example, maximum operational authority would mean that no person,
-------
business, city, or any entity would lack an approved standard of collection
and disposal service. Charges for the service would apply universally
and reflect accurately the total cost of the service. In an urban region,
the maximum operational authority would encompass the entire metropolitan
area.
This concept does not preclude private collection and disposal
services, nor the subsidizing of service charges to some individuals
unable to pay for the service, such as ghetto dwellers or disadvantaged
rural persons. In addition, existing intergovernmental mechanisms could
be applied within this conceptual framework. An examination of these
mechanisms, as related to the maximum operational authority concept,
will provide useful examples.
Intergovernmental Mechanisms
In order for solid waste problems to be solved by planning and
implementing solid waste management systems within regional configura-
tions, appropriate legal organizational mechanisms must be established.
They must be oriented toward intergovernmental cooperation and serve
to unify the numerous and often conflicting individual jurisdictions
characteristic of regional areas. In addition, the regional configura-
tion selected should be conducive to the establishment of a solid waste
management system on an integrated management basis having maximum opera-
tional authority. The operating region should be delineated in a way
that maximizes the population that is served. Incompatibility will
often require establishing a separate, but adjoining operating region.
10
-------
Delineation of a county or group of counties will often provide a con-
venient organizational framework for a solid waste management system.6
Policymakers and planners of intergovernmental organizations for
solid waste management must be concerned about the joint approach mech-
anisms available, including administrative arrangements, financing,
management reporting, and areas of mutual responsibility. The following
sections will examine these considerations in their relation to solid
waste management.
Three main intergovernmental mechanisms are available: (l) the
joint operation by two or more units of a service facility; (2) provision
of a service on a contractual basis by one governmental unit to at least
one other; (3) an overall operating district, authority, or utility
supervised by a board of commissioners or directors with day-to-day
operation delegated to a manager and staff. All three can be modified
depending upon circumstances. Under each, the agency or operating au-
thority responsible for facilities or services may use its own staff
and facilities, those of the units receiving the service, or those of
private suppliers or contractors.
Joint Operations. In all States, local units of government may
agree under certain circumstances to jointly perform various public
services. Generally, agreements can be used to undertake together any
functions and responsibilities that each unit could undertake singly.
Typical services might include police and fire protection, sanitation,
public health, joint operation and occupancy of public buildings, mass
transportation, and water supply. The joint efforts can involve an
11
-------
exercise of powers or an agreement or contract for services. In the
application to solid waste management, interest centers on the contract
or agreement among units of government for the joint provision of a
service.
The financing techniques used by a local government acting alone
can usually be used in joint operations. User charges might be levied
for direct operations and to retire revenue bonds. In other situations,
funds might be provided from general revenues derived from tax levies
imposed by each participating governmental unit or from special taxing
powers of the solid waste management jurisdiction. Exact methods would
depend upon State statutes or the preferences of the participants to
the joint agreement.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations states that
"Intergovernmental contracts and agreements are the most widely used
formal method of accommodating governmental problems to geographic
boundaries. . . . They constitute a method of adaptation which bypasses
basic structural and organizational problems and the issue of allocating
responsibility among levels of government. Finally, they stress con-
solidation of services, rather than consolidation of governments."7
Contractual Services. Municipal-type services provided under con-
tract include those supplied by one governmental unit to other units,
by private operators, or by some combination thereof. Many States have
enacted legislation that enables its local units of government to enter
into such agreements. Among their many advantages are the elimination
of duplicate services, staffs, and expenditures among several neighboring
12
-------
units of government. Operations and budgets are also more easily planned.
If private contractors for services are utilized, the governmental unit
does not have to hire and maintain its own employees. Furthermore,
a contract with a private operator will fix costs for a definite period
and thus provide a more positive planning base.
An interesting and potentially useful example of one unit of govern-
ment providing solid waste management to others through contractual
services is the Lakewood Plan. It is basically a contractual agreement
whereby the County of Los Angeles, California, performs municipal services
for its municipalities. These include police and fire protection, health,
sanitation, planning, public works, water, finance, and sometimes man-
agement. Although the county had provided these services in limited
areas to its municipalities for about k$ years, it was not until the
City of Lakewood in southeastern Los Angeles County was incorporated
in 195^ that all municipal services were supplied to a city. This was
also the first such total municipal service arrangement in the United
States.8
This method lends itself to area-wide provision of solid waste
management services by an established unit of general government or
by a solid waste management utility formed especially for the purpose.9
Overall Operational Organizations
In In approaching solid waste management on a regional basis, inter-
governmental agreements might be further formalized by establishing
organizational entities that permit operations, possible taxing or user
13
-------
fee assessment powers, and the incurring of debt through various bond
mechanisms. The operational organizations relevant to intergovernmental
management of solid waste are authorities, special districts, and utili-
ties. They are usually established according to specifications contained
in each State's statutes. Intergovernmental agreements or organizations
at the local level that cross State boundaries must be authorized by
statute in each State affected—sometimes by a constitutional provision.
Congressional consent is usually not required for a local interstate
organization, even though a type of interstate compact is involved.
Although there are advantages in having recourse to a specific
organization with special powers, such as special districts and authori-
ties, this approach should be taken with caution. It should be under-
taken only after alternatives, such as an intergovernmental or contractual
agreement, have been rejected. It has been far too easy to add layers
of local jurisdiction each time a new problem arises. A satisfactory
alternative, which combines certain advantages of several approaches,
would be to organize, through an intergovernmental agreement, a region-
wide authority that operates as a utility having maximum operational
authority for an integrated solid waste management system. The authority-
utility would have the power to license private contractors or to under-
take its own collection, transportation, disposal, reduction, and
reclamation operations and to establish and enforce all standards for
a specific region. Financing its own facilities or leasing them to
private contractors could be equitably done with funds derived from
user charges and revenue bonds. Day-to-day management would be the
-------
responsibility of a manager-answering to a board of directors similar
to a city manager-council arrangement or the manager of TVA. In a city
having a counci1-manager form of government, the hired manager is re-
sponsible for day-to-day administration, preparation of the budget,
and direction of the various departments, He answers to the city council,
which tries to avoid becoming involved in administration. It does,
however, determine policy, legislate, and pass on the budget. Using
a regional example, TVA has three directors who plan the development
of programs and determine policy. Administration is delegated to a
general manager.
Operational Considerations
Whatever form the operating agency for solid waste management takes,
it will have similar operational considerations. Provision will have
to be made for planning and administration, including finance and budget-
ing, manpower, equipment and facilities management, and control and
evaluation.
Operating and capital budgets must be prepared to plan and guide
expenditures for current and future periods. Sources of revenue have
to be identified. This may call for imposing general tax levies in
the service area, effecting direct service charges, floating general
obligation or revenue bonds, or perhaps using a pay-as-you-go technique.
Regardless of the method or combination of methods used, efforts should
be made to relate the cost of the integrated management system to ade-
quate charges for the service provided.
15
-------
Manpower must be considered carefully. Planning must include long-
term staffing forecasts, recruitment methods, training elements and
procedures, occupational health and safety standards, collective bargain-
ing, wages, and grievance and arbitration arrangements. All position
classifications should be considered, including equipment operators,
clerks, administrators, and professional personnel in order to properly
plan for short- and long-term needs, provide routes of promotion and
continuity of the system, and to develop a relevant and strong training
program. Equipment and facility needs, purchases, operating and capital
costs, maintenance and salvage procedures must be planned and developed
within ths system. Finally, a way to control the system must be developed
and maintained. Good accounting procedures with adequate records should
be installed to measure not only financial aspects, but also services
rendered, safety performance, employee efficiency, development, and
retention, and public attitudes toward the service. If private con-
tractors are franchised or licensed to provide the services, many of
these considerations wil! be his management responsibility. Nevertheless,
the responsible public agency must assure that its contractors perform
their management duties efficiently and effectively in order to provide
a high level of uninterrupted service at a reasonable cost.
Conclusions
Solid waste management must be approached according to the concepts
of an integrated management system within a framework of maximum opera-
tional authority. Adoption of this broad approach will frequently require
16
-------
a transcending of jurisdictional boundaries. Consequently, intergovern-
mental approaches to solid waste management must be taken. Intergovern-
mental solid waste management entities can often be related rationally
to an urban, rural, or statewide interstate region. It is also possible
and desirable to apply existing concepts of intergovernmental approaches
to solid waste management in these three regional types. The options
available include joint powers and services agreements, contractual
arrangements, and overall operational organizations incorporating the
advantages of authorities, compacts, and utilities.
Development of an integrated management system includes the organi-
zation of the region-wide intergovernmental jurisdiction and an actual
operating element. In planning the system, consideration must, therefore,
be given to finances, manpower, equipment and facilities management,
and control and evaluation of the system's operation and performance.
17
-------
REFERENCES
1. Minnesota. Sessions laws. An act relating to the Metropolitan
Council; providing for the creation of a sewer service board
and prescribing its duties and powers; providing for the
collection, treatment and disposal of sewage in the metropolitan
area. chap. ^9, S. F- No. 237, 19&9. (Codified in Minnesota
stat. annotated, chap. 473C. Metropolitan Sewer Service [new].)
2. Minnesota. Sessions laws. An act creating a metropolitan council
for the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,
Scott and Washington; providing for the operation thereof, chap.
896, H. F. No. 1508, 1967. (Codified in Minnesota stat. annotated.
chap. 473B. Metropolitan Council [new].)
3. Toftner, R. 0. Developing a State solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
4. Friedmann, J., and W. Alonso, eds. Regional development and planning;
a reader. Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1964. 722 p.
5. Wilcox, C. Public policies toward business. 3d ed. Homewood, 111.,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1966. 882 p.
6. National Association of Counties Research Foundation. Guidelines for
local governments on solid waste management. Public Health Service
Publication No. 2084. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971. (In press.)
7. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. An information
report; a handbook for interlocal agreements and contracts. Wash-
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967- 197 p.
8. Kennedy, H. W. A new role for the urban county?--the "Lakewood Plan."
In Morlan, R. L. Capitol courthouse and city hall; readings in
American State and local government. 2d ed. Boston, Houghton
Miff 1 in Company; I960. p. 224-227.
9. Clark, R. M., R. 0. Toftner, and T. W. Bendixen. Management of solid
waste; the utility concept. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, Proc. ASCE. [February 1971.]
ya381
------- |