Opinion ID: 2314437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Validity of the County's Flow Control Ordinance Under the Commerce Clause

Text: The Commonwealth next claims that the Commonwealth Court erred in ruling that the Ordinance violates the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause. There is a strong presumption that an act of the General Assembly is constitutional and such act will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly violates the constitution. Hayes v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 155, 425 A.2d 419, 421 (1981). The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. Both the transportation of solid waste and flow control ordinances implicate interstate commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 388, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 1681, 128 L.Ed.2d 399, 407 (1994); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353, 359, 112 S.Ct. 2019, 2023, 119 L.Ed.2d 139, 146-47 (1992); Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621-24, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 2534-35, 57 L.Ed.2d 475, 480-82 (1978). The Commerce Clause has a negative or dormant aspect which limits the power of the states to erect barriers against interstate trade where Congress has not affirmatively acted to either authorize or forbid the challenged state activity. Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27, 35, 100 S.Ct. 2009, 2014-15, 64 L.Ed.2d 702, 711-12 (1980); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 326-27, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 1731-32, 60 L.Ed.2d 250, 255-56 (1979). The dormant Commerce Clause doctrine serves to prevent a state from regulating business in such a way as to provide unfair advantage to its own residents at the expense of residents of another state. New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 273-74, 108 S.Ct. 1803, 1807-08, 100 L.Ed.2d 302, 308 (1988). Two tests are used in this type of Commerce Clause analysis: the strict scrutiny and the balancing tests. A strict scrutiny review applies where an ordinance facially discriminates against interstate commerce by creating local economic protectionism. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. at 392, 114 S.Ct. at 1683, 128 L.Ed.2d at 409. [11] Under strict scrutiny, a facially discriminatory ordinance almost always is deemed invalid unless the governmental entity defending the regulation establishes that the regulation advances a legitimate local public purpose and that there are no nondiscriminatory alternatives available which adequately serve the local interests at stake. C & A Carbone, Inc., id.; Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93, 97, 114 S.Ct. 1345, 1349-50, 128 L.Ed.2d 13, 21 (1994). Where an ordinance does not discriminate against interstate commerce either in purpose or effect, the ordinance will be upheld unless the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 847, 25 L.Ed.2d 174, 178-79 (1970). In Pike, the Court directed that, when reviewing dormant Commerce Clause challenges, courts must inquire as to: (1) whether the challenged statute regulates evenhandedly with only incidental effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce either on its face or in practical effect; (2) whether the statute serves a legitimate local purpose; and, if so, (3) whether alternative means could promote this local purpose as well without discriminating against interstate commerce. Id. [12] The critical inquiry here is whether the challenged Ordinance is facially discriminatory in purpose or effect, thereby triggering Carbone, or, if not, whether the Ordinance, as applied, burdens interstate commerce, thereby triggering Pike. The Commonwealth Court did not err when it used the Pike analysis. The County Ordinance contains no facially discriminatory language; the applicable provisions of the Ordinance neither explicitly favor, nor compel the County to designate, in-county or in-state providers, and do not otherwise explicitly provide for economic protectionism. The County Ordinance, however, does have effects on interstate commerce because it requires disposal of County-generated waste only at designated facilities, and only facilities in the County have been designated. As applied, the Ordinance burdens commerce by precluding the transportation of county-generated waste to out-of-state facilities. When the Ordinance is read in light of the Act and the policies of DER, the effects on interstate commerce are even more evident. The County Ordinance is, through section 6.b. of the Ordinance, to be administered consistently with the Act. Under the Act, particularly 53 P.S. §§ 4000.102(a)(6), 303(e) and 502(g), the County is to choose facilities located within the state and must justify in detail the use of out-of-county facilities. While 53 P.S. § 4000.303(e) does not explicitly require counties to select facilities in Pennsylvania or in the relevant county, it does require that sites be contained in a plan and be permitted by the [DER] under the Solid Waste Management Act. Since only Pennsylvania landfills can be permitted by DER under that act, counties which designate sites in their plans are required by Section 303(e) to restrict the disposal of waste to facilities in Pennsylvania. Further, the record reflects that DER's policy is that county plans proposing disposal of waste outside Pennsylvania are considered inconsistent with the Act and are generally unacceptable to the Department. [13] Where counties seek to use out-of-county facilities, they face other burdens. 53 P.S. § 4000.102(a)(6) provides that while the facilities do not have to be located within the county, [p]roper and adequate processing and disposal of municipal waste generated within a county requires the generating county to give first choice to new processing and disposal sites located within that county. 53 P.S. § 4000.502(g) provides that counties must, in their plans, identify the general location within a county where each facility will be located. If the facility is located outside that county, the plan must explain in detail the reasons for selecting the out-of-county facility. [14] Summarizing, as applied, the Ordinance burdens interstate commerce. The burdens arise from the application of relevant statutes and administrative policy which do not permit the transportation of County-generated waste to out-of-state facilities and which fall more heavily on out-of-county facilities. Out-of-state facilities are not on equal footing with in-state or in-county facilities in competition for this article of commerce. The next inquiry is whether the burden is excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. Here, a local benefit of having waste disposed at one of the designated sites is the certainty of available landfill space for the ten-year life of the County Plan. From a review of the record, the Commonwealth Court did not err in determining that the benefit fails to outweigh the burdens on interstate commerce. [15] Thus, the Commonwealth Court's conclusion that the flow control provisions of the County Ordinance were constitutionally invalid is affirmed. The Commonwealth's last Commerce Clause argument is that this court should conclude that the Ordinance does not violate the Commerce Clause because such a result would place in question other contracts the state and its subdivisions enter into, such as contracts for school books and equipment. They argue that the Commerce Clause should not apply because the government is involved, and as long as the government's bidding process does not exclude out-of-state businesses. The Commerce Clause does not apply where a state or governmental entity is a market participant rather than a market regulator. White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204, 206-208, 103 S.Ct. 1042, 1044-45, 75 L.Ed.2d 1, 5-6 (1983). [16] Where a government acts as a proprietor, it shares the same freedom from the Commerce Clause that private parties enjoy. J.F. Shea Co., v. City of Chicago, 992 F.2d 745, 749 (7th Cir.1993), citing Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 439, 100 S.Ct. 2271, 2278-79, 65 L.Ed.2d 244, 252-53 (1980). Where a county has a status as an operator of a landfill, the county is a market participant and the county's regulations, which give county residents preference in the use of the county-operated landfill, do not violate the Commerce Clause. Swin Resource Systems, Inc. v. Lycoming County, 883 F.2d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1077, 110 S.Ct. 1127, 107 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1990). In the present case, the County was not the operator of a landfill and could only implement the provisions of its contracts with the designated landfills by adopting an ordinance. Hence, the County, in entering said contracts, was not acting solely as a market participant but as a regulator. Consequently, the Commerce Clause is applicable.