Opinion ID: 2308803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Law Preemption

Text: Finally, Tri-State argues that the Maine Waste Management Act (WMA) preempts the Ordinance. Tri-State essentially claims that New Gloucester's Ordinance defeats the purpose of the WMA by requiring that waste be separated for recycling, when the highest and best use for that waste is incineration. Tri-State's challenge to the Ordinance is premised on the fact that some otherwise recyclable materials may be rendered unsuitable for recycling by contamination from other waste. WMA defines recyclable as possessing physical and economic characteristics that allow a material to be recycled. 38 M.R.S.A. § 1303-C (Supp.1992-1993). The Town's Ordinance lists thirteen items that, when clean, are suitable for recycling. As we have said before, 38 M.R.S.A. § 1304-B(2) gives the [Town] authority to remove recyclables from the waste stream. The authority to remove recyclables allows the [Town] to comply with the state recycling policy without violating its flow control ordinance or its agreement with MMWAC. City of Auburn v. Tri-State, 630 A.2d at 231 n. 7. Where possible, we construe local ordinances so as to comply with state legislation. See Blouin v. City of Rockland, 441 A.2d 1008, 1009 (Me.1982); State v. Davenport, 326 A.2d 1, 6 (Me.1974) (cardinal principle is to save not destroy). By listing materials as recyclable, the Ordinance complies with Maine law. There is no merit to Tri-State's position. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.