Opinion ID: 1201106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the field of hazardous waste disposal

Text: The HWMA contains no express language indicating intent to preempt local regulation; nor does it expressly grant to localities the right to regulate. However, I.C. § 39-4404 provides: The legislature intends that the State of Idaho enact and carry out a hazardous waste program that will enable the state to assume primacy over hazardous waste control from the federal government... . By the provisions of this chapter, the legislature desires to avoid the existence of duplicative, overlapping or conflicting state and federal regulatory systems... . (Emphasis added). I.C. § 39-4405 further provides that the Board of Health and Welfare adopt such rules and regulations as are necessary and feasible for the management of post generation handling, collection, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes within the state.  (Emphasis added). Importantly, I.C. § 39-4419 reads: The director [of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare] shall have the power and the duty to encourage cooperative activities between the department and other states for the improved management of hazardous wastes, and so far as is practical, to provide for uniform state regulations and for interstate agreements relating to hazardous waste management. (Emphasis added). All of the above-cited code sections evince a strong legislative intent that regulation of the field of hazardous waste disposal be regulated by means of one, uniform statewide scheme enabling this state to enter into meaningful interstate agreements. Taken alone, this clear legislative intent is more than sufficient to preempt the field and preclude local governmental regulation of the subject matter. However, even were such not the case, the HWMA, in and of itself, is a comprehensive statutory scheme of the kind which implicitly evidences legislative intent to preempt the field. The HWMA provides for regulation, trip permits and a manifest system for those who transport hazardous waste (I.C. §§ 67-2929-30 and I.C. § 39-4410); it further regulates a permit system for hazardous waste facilities (I.C. § 39-4409) and provides recording and reporting requirements for generators and facilities (I.C. § 39-4411, 39-4429); fee systems and dedicated funds for emergency responses, and monitoring (I.C. §§ 39-4417, 4410 and 39-4427) are also provided. There are also code sections dealing with citizen suits (I.C. § 39-4416), local governmental notice (I.C. § 39-4418), interstate cooperation (I.C. § 39-4419), employment security (I.C. § 39-4420), as well as broad enforcement provisions (I.C. § 39-4413). The HWMA speaks for itself. This state's legislature has acted in an all-encompassing fashion towards regulating the field of hazardous waste disposal. Such is also readily apparent from a reading of the ordinance. Ordinance 83-02 is largely duplicative of the HWMA. In fact, the county itself concedes that the bulk of Ordinance 83-02 is entirely duplicative of the HWMA and, necessarily, the RCRA. Such extensive duplication leads to the inescapable conclusion that the area has already been fully regulated and the fields sought to be covered by the ordinance already occupied by the HWMA. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is apparent that an ordinance and a statute may be identical under this rule and yet the ordinance is invalid because within the constitutional provision it is in conflict with the statute... . Where a statute and an ordinance are identical it is obvious that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state legislation. Pipoly v. Benson, [20 Cal.2d 366] 125 P.2d 482, 485 (Cal. 1942). ( See also, Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, [219 Cal.3d 277, 219 Cal. Rptr. 467, 474] 707 P.2d 840, 847 (Cal. 1985); Lancaster v. Municipal Court, [6 Cal.3d 805, 100 Cal. Rptr. 609] 494 P.2d 681 (Cal. 1972). Most importantly, we also note that the very subject matter here involved, the field of hazardous waste disposal, is fraught with such unique concerns and dangers to both the state and the nation that its regulation demands a statewide, rather than local, approach. We are not the only state to so decide. In Stablex Corp. v. Town of Hooksett, 122 N.H. 1091, 456 A.2d 94 (1982), the Town of Hooksett enacted ordinances regulating the siting and construction of hazardous waste facilities. The New Hampshire Supreme Court noted that state and federal hazardous waste legislation was ... enacted against a background that can only be termed a state and national emergency... . Stablex, 456 A.2d at 96. That court further concluded that the New Hampshire state statutes regulating hazardous waste comprised a comprehensive and detailed program of statewide regulation which preempted any local action in the field. ( See also, Applied Chemical Technology, Inc. v. Town of Merrimack, 126 N.H. 45, 490 A.2d 1348 (1985) Equally compelling and nearly identical reasoning was employed in Township of Cascade v. Cascade Resource Recovery Inc., 118 Mich. App. 580, 325 N.W.2d 500 (1982). [T]he safe management and disposal of hazardous wastes is clearly an area which demands uniform, statewide treatment... . Michigan is extremely limited in the number of facilities that handle this waste properly. This is due partly because no community wants hazardous waste facility in its vicinity. Thus, local interests strongly want to retain their control. However, the same reasoning easily justifies state control. The legislature recognized that hazardous waste disposal areas evoke such strong emotions in localities that the decision as to where a landfill should go should not be given to the locality, which is far more swayed by parochial interests than the state. The legislature, instead, gave the power to a centralized decisionmaker who could act uniformly and provide the most effective means of regulating hazardous waste. 325 N.W.2d at 504. It is important to note that the same considerations which permeated the holding in Township of Cascade are equally applicable here. The state of Idaho is limited to very few facilities which handle hazardous waste. Additionally, the treatment and storage of hazardous waste is a subject which inspires a unique amount of interest and concern from this state's citizenry. We recognize the unique importance of and benefit derived from local government regulation and that, ordinarily, local problems are best solved by local regulation, since local governmental entities are uniquely suited to fashioning workable solutions by virtue of their proximity to, and direct awareness of, the issues involved. By our ruling here, we in no way denigrate the function of local government. Instead, we acknowledge the unique importance and complexity of the subject matter. (See also, Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana Inc. v. Iberville Parish Police Jury, 371 So.2d 1127 (La. 1979)). The county cites several authorities which suggest that the subject matter of hazardous waste regulation does not necessarily lend itself to a finding of preemption of local regulation. We find those authorities either unpersuasive in view of the concerns already articulated, or inapplicable due to the jurisdiction's non-use of the doctrine of implied preemption. Fondessy Enterprises v. City of Oregon, 23 Ohio St.3d 213, 492 N.E.2d 797 (1986) (holding that municipal regulation of a hazardous waste facility was permitted as it did not conflict with state law, but defining conflict by stating the test is whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits and vice versa. 492 N.E.2d at 801); Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont, 334 S.E.2d 616 (W. Va. 1985) (holding based on the unique status and import given that state's common law cause of action for nuisance); Sunny Farms Ltd. v. North Cordorus Township, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 371, 474 A.2d 56 (1984); State v. City of Klamath Falls, 68 Or. App. 148, 682 P.2d 779, review denied, 297 Or. 781, 687 P.2d 796 (1984) (giving little or no credence to the concept of implied preemption). For the reasons stated, the trial court correctly found the field of hazardous waste disposal is uniquely susceptible of, and appropriate for, uniform statewide regulation, which regulation has, in fact, been effected through the provisions of the HWMA rendering Ordinance 83-02 void.