Opinion ID: 3009773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the solid waste crisis

Text: During the 1970s and '80s, national environmental concerns fostered stricter state regulation of waste disposal. This regulation led to a large number of landfill closures throughout the United States, creating shortages in many places and driving up landfill pricing. See Eric S. Petersen & David N. Abramowitz, Municipal Solid Waste Flow in the Post-Carbone World, 22 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 361 n.33 (1995); see also Harvey SA 382 (Kerns); James C. Vago, Comment, The Uncertain Future of Flow Control Ordinances: The Last Trash to Clarkstown?, 22 N. KY. L. REV. 93, 98 (1995). Pennsylvania was no exception. It too experienced inadequate and rapidly diminishing disposal capacity for municipal waste. See 53 P.S. §4000.102(a)(2) (legislative findings). Waste disposal methods, ranked in descending order of environmental impact, include: source reduction and reuse, waste combustion, and landfilling. See Vago, 22 N. KY. L. REV. at 106. Environmentally advanced, innovative waste disposal facilities can cost in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to construct. See Vago, 22 N. KY. L. REV. at 108. State and federal environmental mandates often require the use of these new, more expensive facilities. Petersen & Abramowitz, 22 FORDHAM URB. L.J. at  [n.66]. Securing long term access to disposal facilities necessary to protect the citizens' health and safety 6 requires long-term commitments, debt and security. Id. [n.66]. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs, and thus can charge a lower tipping fee.