Opinion ID: 2033261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Compliance with Iowa Code Section 455B.301A(2).

Text: HMR contends that the defendants have violated Iowa Code section 455B.301A(2) because they have failed to utilize private enterprise in their recycling programs. The statute upon which HMR relies states: 2. In the implementation of the solid waste management policy, the state shall: ... b. Utilize the capabilities of private enterprise as well as the services of public agents to accomplish the desired objectives of an effective solid waste management program. Id. § 455B.301A(2) (emphasis added). The district court held that this directive did not apply to the defendants because, by the statute's own terms, it encompassed only the state. HMR asserts this ruling was in error because under section 455B.302, cities are ordered to provide for the establishment and operation of a comprehensive solid waste reduction program consistent with the waste management hierarchy under section 455B.301A.  Id. § 455B.302 (emphasis added). The flaw in HMR's argument is that the requirement under section 455B.301A(2) that private enterprise be utilizedis not part of the waste management hierarchy imposed on cities and outlined in section 455B.301A(1). See id. § 455B.301A(1) (establishing a hierarchy that includes [v]olume reduction at the source and [r]ecycling and reuse). Accordingly, the requirement that cities follow the waste management hierarchy cannot be interpreted to impose upon cities the additional requirement that they use private enterprise. If the legislature had intended to obligate cities to engage private enterprise, the legislature would have said so. Instead, the legislature stated in section 455B.302 that [c]ities ... may execute with public and private agencies contracts, leases, or other necessary instruments.... (Emphasis added.) To apply to cities section 455B.301A(2), which states that the state shall ... [u]tilize the capabilities of private enterprise, would be directly contrary to the legislature's expressed intent in section 455B.302 making the use of private agencies optional for cities. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that section 455B.301A(2) does not apply to cities or their agencies. Accordingly, we must reject, as did the district court, HMR's contention that the defendants have violated this statutory provision. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly entered on this claim.