Regardless of their size or location, most local governments across the United States are currently experiencing some degree of fiscal stress. Often, constituents demand more services, or other levels of government mandate more services, without regard for the local government's ability to generate sufficient revenue to pay for those services.

Given West Virginia's recent economic difficulties, it is not surprising to learn that many local governments in West Virginia are currently experiencing fiscal stress. This article examines the status of West Virginia's local government's fiscal health and provides several recommendations for improvements. It answers the following questions:

• What is fiscal stress?

• To what extent are West Virginia municipalities and counties experiencing fiscal stress?

• What are its causes?

-What can be done to improve the fiscal situation of West Virginia's municipalities and counties?

What is Fiscal Stress?

There is no clear, agreed upon definition for fiscal stress. It has been broadly defined as a gap between the needs and expectations for government services and the ability to generate the resources necessary to sustain them (Levine 1980). Thus, in its simplest form, fiscal stress refers to the inability of a government to balance its budget. Since state and local governments are legally required to balance their operating budgets on an annual basis, the symptoms of fiscal stress in state and local governments are more pronounced and readily identifiable than in the federal government (Levine 1980; Pagano and Moore 1985).

Schick (1980) has argued that resource scarcity is always present in government budgeting because the public's appetite for services is almost always greater than its willingness to pay for those services. As a result, it is the intensity and duration of resource scarcity that varies among governments, not its presence or absence. Schick (1980) identified four different types of resource scarcity:
 

2.  relaxed scarcity-where there are sufficient resources to sustain existing services and to undertake substantial new commitments; chronic scarcity-where enough resources exist to continue what is already being done but not enough resources exist for substantial program expansion;
 

3. acute scarcity-where available resources do not cover the incremental rise in program costs and some retrenchment is necessary; and

4. total scarcity-where available resources are not adequate for ongoing government programs and the government cannot pay for programs it already has.

The defining characteristic that differentiates these four types of resource scarcity is the availability (or lack of availability) of incremental budget resources. Although there are exceptions, most local governments across the United States are normally subject to chronic scarcity. For the purposes of evaluating the degree to which West Virginia's local governments are subject to fiscal stress, fiscal stress is defined here as being synonymous with resource scarcity that is beyond the normal, namely, acute scarcity and total scarcity.

Survey of West Virginia Local Government
Fiscal Trends

In 1989-1990, the National Small Governments Research Network surveyed 2,000 small and rural municipalities and 1,000 counties across the United States to study fiscal trends among America's small local governments. The Institute for Public Affairs and the Department of Public Administration at West Virginia University, in cooperation with the West Virginia Municipal League and the West Virginia Association of Counties, participated in this national study by conducting a survey of local government officials in West Virginia. The respondents (an official from each jurisdiction, such as county clerk, mayor or city manager) were asked a series of questions concerning their jurisdictions, community conditions, budgets, service levels and intergovernmental fiscal relations.

The national survey included relatively few responses from counties and municipalities located in West Virginia (19 counties out of 55 and 20 cities out of 227). Our survey increased the total response rate to 34 counties and 52 cities.

Seven of the survey's county respondents had a population over 50,000; 12 had a population of 20,001 to 49,999; and 15 had a population below 20,000. Municipal respondents included Charleston and Huntington (West Virginia's two Class I cities: population over 50,000); 13 Class 11 cities (population of 10,000 to 49,999); 17 Class III cities (population of 2,001 to 9,999); and 20 towns and villages (population under 2,000).

Table 1 provides the average employment levels, administration, and budget amounts reported by the West Virginia county and municipal governments that responded to the survey. It shows that West Virginia's typical municipality generally has more employees and volunteers, on both a full-time and part-time basis, than West Virginia's typical county. Not surprisingly, the survey also revealed that the number of public employees in West Virginia's counties and municipalities was positively related to their population size. The larger the county or municipalities' population, the greater the number of public employees. The typical Class I city, for example, had 660 full-time employees and 109 part-time employees. The typical Class IV city had only 4 full-time employees and 2 parttime employees. Similarly, counties with a population greater than 50,000 averaged 134 full-time employees and 29 part-time employees. Counties with a population below 20,000 averaged 31 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees.

The survey revealed that 33 percent of the cities and 27 percent of the counties had a professional administrator. The likelihood of having a professional administrator was positively related to population size. For example, Class I cities (2 out of 2) and Class 11 cities (9 out of 13) were much more likely to have a professional administrator than Class 111 (6 out of 17) or Class IV (0 out of 20) cities. Counties followed the same pattern. Five of the seven counties with a population over 50,000 that responded to the survey indicated that they had a professional administrator (33 percent), compared to only two of the 12 counties with a population of 20,001 to 49,999 (17 percent) and two out of 15 counties with a population below 20,000 (13 percent).

Tthe survey also revealed that cities increased their budgets slightly between 1987 and 1988, ranging from an increase of one-half of one percent to 5.4 percent. Class I I I and Class IV cities generally increased their budgets to a greater extent, on a percentage basis, than larger cities. Counties, on the other hand, reduced their operating budgets, ranging from a reduction of 1 percent to 8.2 percent. The less-populated coun

ties tended to reduce their budgets to a greater extent, on a percentage basis, than the more highly populated counties. This suggests that in an era of local government fiscal stress, West Virginia's cities are finding the wherewithal to expand their operating budgets slightly or at least restrain declines while West Virginia's counties are being forced to reduce their budgets.

Local Government Fiscal Conditions in
West Virginia

West Virginia's municipal and county officials were asked questions designed to determine their local government's current fiscal condition. Most cities reported having a year-end cash surplus; a decline in population; increased liability costs; ease in balancing operating fund revenues vs. expenditures; and assets in excess of current liabilities. More highly populated cities were much more likely to have experienced an increase in local taxes; a low rate of delinquency in property tax payments; a fully or nearly fully funded retirement system; a stable or improved credit bond rating; a new accounting and/or financial management systerril a decrease in local tax base; and a decline in population than less-populated cities. Only the last two conditions are likely to have a relatively negative impact on city fiscal conditions. For the most part, West Virginia's larger cities reported more positive than negative fiscal conditions. However, the indications for smaller cities are less rosy. They were less likely to have had an increase in local taxes, more likely to have had higher rates of delinquency in property tax payments, more likely to have unfunded retirement systems, and less likely to have in place a new accounting and/or financial management system. Nevertheless,they are much less likely than larger cities to have experienced declines in population and decreases in their local tax base. Table 2 indicates that counties experienced similar conditions. However, they were more likely than cities to have experienced a decline in population and were less likely to have a year-end surplus.

Respondents indicated that they have engaged in a variety of activities to secure new revenue to address their fiscal problems (see Table 3). Cities focused their efforts on annexation, attracting new businesses, user fee charges and grants. Counties also increased their efforts to attract new businesses and applied for more grants. However, counties were much more likely than cities to raise taxes as means of generating additional revenue.

Budget Cuts and Service Levels

Respondents indicated that West Virginia's cities and counties used different approaches to resolve their fiscal stress (see Table 4). Cities focused their efforts on generating new revenue and, to a lesser extent, making program and administrative process changes and reducing service levels. Counties, on the other hand, overwhelmingly dealt with fiscal stress by reducing service levels. They were less likely than cities to undertake program and administrative process changes or to generate new revenue. This suggests that the fiscal climate for West Virginia's municipalities, in terms of having to make budget cuts and reducing service levels, i's much more favorable at this time than for counties.

Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations

The survey also asked questions about the fiscal relations among West Virginia's local governments, West Virginia's state government, and the federal government. Cities most prominently cited federal program cutbacks as a fiscal problem and also gave substantial weight to state limits on local taxing authority, state mandates, and federal mandates. Counties even more overwhelmingly cited federal program cutbacks as a fiscal problem and gave greater weight than cities to state mandates. Counties also cited state limits on local taxing authority and federal mandates as fiscal problems.

The respondents indicated that most of these fiscal problems had become worse over the 1987-1989 period. The only exceptions were state limits on local taxing authority and state limits on debt financing. These were generally viewed as remaining the same by both cities and counties.

The loss of federal assistance, particularly General Revenue Sharing, forced both cities and counties to substantially reduce both their operating and capital expenditures. Cities also responded to the federal government's cutbacks by increasing existing user charges, while counties increased local taxes.

The respondents reported that West Virginia's state government has not increased its financial assistance to compensate for the federal government's cutbacks. Instead, a substantial number of local governments reported that their state financial assistance was reduced.

Overall, the state of intergovernmental fiscal relations is quite bleak for West Virginia's municipalities and counties. Federal program cutbacks and federal and state mandates have created serious fiscal problems for both cities and counties and the situation is getting worse, not better. Significant numbers of local governments in West Virginia cite decreased federal and state financial assistance as having serious fiscal impacts on their ability to provide services. As if the lack of financial assistance were not enough, state limitations on local governments' ability to generate revenue has forced them to go it alone as they face the added cost of complying with state and federal mandates.

What Causes Fiscal Stress?

The survey data reviewed in the previous section indicates that West Virginia's municipalities and counties are subject to chronic scarcity but are, in most instances, not yet in great difficulty. The data do show, however, that West Virginia's local governments are trending toward severe fiscal stress (acute scarcity and total scarcity) and may be subject to it in the not too distant future.

Social scientists have developed four competing models to help explain the causes of fiscal stress in local governments: the socioeconomic decline (or migration and tax base erosion) model, the bureaucratic expansion model, the political vulnerability model, and the bad internal management model (Cigler 1985; Pammer 1990; Rubin 1982, 1985). Although these models are based on the experiences of large urban areas, they can help to explain the causes of fiscal stress in West Virginia's local governments.

Socioeconomic Factors Contributing to
Fiscal Stress

Advocates of the socioeconomic decline model emphasize the influence of external factors such as economic and demographic changes as the primary cause of local government fiscal stress. According to the model, migration patterns and the loss of population and industry gradually leads to a declining revenue base and a more dependent population (i.e., poor, unemployed, elderly) that creates, in turn, a greater demand for public services without an equivalent increase in the capacity of the local government to generate additional revenue. Analysis of larger cities under fiscal stress has supported the general propositions of the socioeconomic decline model. Larger cities in financial difficulty were typically found to have a declining population, a rising cost of public services, and a lagging growth in revenues (Howell and Stamm 1979).

West Virginia's local governments have many of the elements which are symptomatic of fiscal stress attributable to the socioeconomic decline model. Many of West Virginia's municipalities and counties have experienced population out-migration, loss of industry, and tax-base erosion.

Bureaucratic Factors Contributing to Fiscal Stress

The bureaucratic expansion model suggests that the primary cause of local government fiscal stress is excessive growth in government size and activity. This "public choice" view argues that local government officials have a tendency to respond to the service demands of the politically organized and vocal and to spread the cost of paying for those increased services among all citizens. Since the cost is shared by many, the burden seems small, the majority do not complain, the organized and vocal are appeased, and the government officials' reelection prospects are enhanced. However, as more and more groups recognize the efficacy of collective action, the demand for government services continues to increase. Since it is in the short-term political interests of elected officials to meet the service needs of the organized and vocal and it is not in their political interests to increase taxes and fees, elected officials eventually expand the size of government beyond the revenues being generated to support those services, creating fiscal stress.

Advocates of the bureaucratic expansion model also argue that government bureaucrats, either through selfinterest or in response to interest group demands, have a tendency to expand their agencies beyond government's fiscal capacity. They argue that bureaucrats work to enlarge the size and activities of government because larger government provides bureaucrats with more opportunities for career advancement and greater job security.

The degree to which the bureaucratic expansion model applies to West Virginia's local governments is constrained by state law. The Tax Limitation Amendment of 1933 and the Homestead Exemption for senior citizens and the disabled have severely limited the capacity of West Virginia's local governments to raise revenue through the property tax (White 1991). Also, West Virginia's local governments do not have the authority to impose local income taxes or sales taxes and the counties' repeated efforts to gain the authority to impose business and occupation taxes have been turned down by state government.

Political Factors Contributing to Fiscal Stress

Advocates of the political vulnerability model argue that local political culture shapes fiscal stress. Political culture refers to the attitudes and beliefs which give order and meaning to a political process and provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in a political system (Pye 1968; Wirt 1991). Each state, and to a large extent, each locality in the United States has its own unique political culture. However, similarities do exist, particularly within specific regions of the country and within states. These similarities have led social scientists to the conclusion that some local governments and states are more likely than others to respond to the demands of organized and vocal interest groups (i.e. to be subjected to the bureaucratic expansion model).

According to Daniel Elazar, the nation's leading authority on political culture in America, West Virginia's political culture:

accepts a substantially hierarchical society as part of the ordered nature of things, authorizing and expecting those at the top of the social structure to take a special and dominant role in government (Elazar 1984).

According to Elazar, this deferential attitude accepts government as a legitimate actor that can play a positive role in society. However, it also creates a danger because government can be used by organized interests to secure the continued maintenance of the dominant economic and social order (Elazar 1984).

Elazar's analysis of political culture suggests that West Virginia's state and local governments are more likely to follow the political vulnerability model than most other state and local governments in the country. Al

though the constraints on local government revenue generation make it difficult for West Virginia's local elected officials to increase the size and activities of local governments in West Virginia relative to those in other states, that does not necessarily mean that they will not respond to organized and vocal interest groups and expand the size of local government to levels which make it difficult to keep expenditures in line with the amount of revenues generated. In fact, the constraints placed on local governments' ability to generate revenue make it more, not less likely, that West Virginia's local governments will experience fiscal stress.

Management Factors Contributing to Fiscal Stress

A fourth model for explaining fiscal stress cites bad internal management. Advocates of this model argue that unsound financial management leads to revenue shortfalls or contributes to the inability of local governments to adequately manage their budgetary problems. Examples of financial mismanagement include the use of inaccurate estimating and poor budgeting practices. The relative lack of professional administrators and financial management expertise in West Virginia's municipalities and counties creates the potential for unsound financial management practices in some localities which, in turn, can lead to fiscal stress.

Responses to Fiscal Stress

Previous research suggests that there is no single, best way to ease local government fiscal stress. Optimal strategies differ from place to place and from time to time depending upon (1) the severity of the stress; (2) the size and power of the affected governmental units; (3) the power and alignment of interest groups; (4) the power and professionalism of public employees; and (5) the informal and formal power accumulated by political leaders (Levine 1980; Levine, Rubin, and Wolohojian 1981).

Responses to these situational factors have generally focused on strategies such as acquiring additional revenues, reducing demand for services, improving productivity, increasing reliance on the private sector, increasing reliance on individual citizens (volunteers), cost cutting, and reduced service levels (Pammer 1990). Why local government officials select a specific strategy is difficult to explain due to the random and individualistic nature of the decision-making process. However, the selection process is usually dominated by the preferences of executive decision-makers (especially city managers and county executives) (Cigler 1985; Morgan and Pammer 1988; Parnmer 1990).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Most municipal and county governments in West Virginia are currently experiencing chronic scarcity, but do not yet appear to be facing serious financial problems. Both municipalities and counties reported year-end surpluses in 1990, although counties were much less likely to have reported surpluses. Many cities indicated ease in balancing operating revenues and expenditures. However, smaller cities reported a somewhat less rosy financial picture.

The relatively positive financial picture revealed by the survey results for West Virginia's local governments in 1990 could be fleeting. Although the current property tax reappraisal process has generated some additional property tax revenue for West Virginia's local governments, municipalities and counties are facing serious financial obstacles, such as the continual decline of federal revenues at the same time that costly federal and state mandates increase. Moreover, no significant increase in either federal or state financial assistance is anticipated or likely forthcoming.

Current Actions By Local Governments

In an effort to avoid severe fiscal stress, many municipalities and counties are currently undertaking strategies to raise revenues and cut back and reduce service levels. For example, West Virginia's municipalities and counties have sought to expand their economic base by increasing their efforts to attract new businesses. Both are also applying for more grants. But, perhaps most significantly, both municipalities and counties are currently reexamining their own resources. Many cities have increased user fee charges, and many counties have adopted tax increases. Also, many counties are undertaking significant program cutbacks. These and other self reliant actions are certainly prudent considering the prospects that lie ahead.

Other Possible Actions by Local Governments

A number of other actions might be taken by local governments to decrease the prospects of severe local government fiscal stress in West Virginia. Increasing program efficiency and increasing volunteerism are al ready being utilized to some extent by municipalities and counties. Increased use of these, as well as some other nontraditional, cost reduction strategies, have merit (e.g., joint service provision with other governments, contracting with the private sector, and purchasing services from other governments).

The Need for State Financial and
Capacity Building Assistance

West Virginia's state government should play a more supportive role in helping municipalities and counties adopt innovative financial and service delivery approaches to meet their fiscal challenges. Specifically, West Virginia's state government should enhance the management capability of local government officials

through increased training, information dissemination and technical assistance. Many municipalities and counties would benefit significantly from the availability of state sponsored training and technical assistance such as those currently offered by the state Department of Tax and Revenue (Cigler 1991; Cahill and James 1992). The County Commissioners' Education Series, started in 1993 and cosponsored by the County Commissioners' Association of West Virginia and West Virginia University's Institute for Public Affairs, is a small but significant, positive step in this direction.

Finally, state policy should play a greater role in enhancing the capabilities of West Virginia's municipalities and counties to meet the fiscal challenges ahead. West Virginia's state government needs to directly intervene to decrease the prospects for local government fiscal stress. Local governments in West Virginia need the fiscal autonomy to act to ensure their financial solvency. State policy currently constrains their ability to raise revenue from almost every major revenue source while expenditure pressures continue to rise consistent with federal and state government mandates and cutbacks in intergovernmental revenue. West Virginia's state government needs to take action to provide the local autonomy required for local governments in West Virginia to avoid falling into fiscal stress.

References

Cahill, Anthony G. and Joseph A. James. 1992. "Responding to Municipal Fiscal Distress: An Emerging Issue for State Governments in the 1990s." Public Administration Review. 52:1 (January/February): 88-94.

Cigler, Beverly A. 1985. "Fiscal Stress: Searching for Causes and Solutions." Urban Affairs Quarterly. 20 (March): 409-415.

Cigler, Beverly A. 1991. Meeting Fiscal Challenges in the 1990s: Innovative Approaches for Rural Local Governments. Technical Paper No. 11. Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.

Elazar, Daniel J. 1984. American Federalism: A View From the States. Third Edition. NY: Harper & Row.

Howell, James and Charles F. Stamm. 1979. Urban Fiscal Stress. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.

Levine, Charles H. Ed. 1980. Managing Fiscal Stress: The Crisis in the Public Sector Chatham, MA: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

Levine, Charles H., Irene Rubin, and George G. Wolohojian. 1981. The Politics of Retrenchment: How Local Governments Manage Fiscal Stress. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Morgan, David R. and William J. Parnmer, Jr. 1988. "Coping with Fiscal Stress: Predicting The Use of Financial Management Practices Among U.S. Cities." Urban Affairs Quarterly- 24:1 (September): 69-86.

Pagano, Michael and Richard J.T. Moore. 1985. Cities and Fiscal Choices: A New Model of Urban Public Investment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Parnmer, William J., Jr. 1990. Managing Fiscal Strain in Major American Cities: Understanding Retrenchment in the Public Sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Pye, Lucian W. 1968. "Political Culture." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 12. NY: Crowell, Collier and MacMillan.

Rubin, Irene S. 1982. Running in the Red., The Political Dynamics of Urban Fiscal Stress. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rubin, Irene S. 1985. "Structural Theories and Urban Fiscal
Stress." Urban Affairs Quarterly. 20:4 (June): 469-486.

Schick, Allen. 1980. "Budgeting Adaptations to Resource Scarcity." In Charles H. Levine and Irene Rubin, Eds. Fiscal Stress and Public Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

White, David E. 1991. "The Property Tax in West Virginia: A

Review and Evaluation." West Virginia Public Affairs Reporter. 8:3 (Summer): 1-12.

Wirt, Frederick M. 1991. "Soft Concepts and Hard Data: A Research Perspective." Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 21 (Spring): 1-13.

The West Virginia state legislature adopted legislation in 1991 that requires municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more to implement a mandatory, curbside recycling program. The law's primary purpose is to prolong the useful life of the state's landfills by reducing the volume of waste going into them. The legislation included specific provisions mandating the collection of at least three recyclable materials, at least one collection day per month, the adoption of an ordinance mandating public participation, and the implementation of a public education program which includes contact with every household in the municipality (WV Code 20-11-5).

This article examines how municipalities have responded to the state's recycling mandates, reports the results of a survey of municipal officials concerning the state's recycling mandates and other issues related to municipal solid waste management in West Virginia, and presents some recommendations for improving the state's current efforts to deal with West Virginia's solid waste.

Recycling Mandates Nationwide

Only four states (Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Wisconsin) have notadopted state legislation to encourage the development of recycling programs. West Virginia is one of 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, that requires either its municipalities and/or its counties to adopt a recycling program. Twenty-two states have approved mandatory solid waste reduction goals (letting the local governments determine for themselves if they want to use recycling as a means to meet these goals) and four states have set recycling mandates solely for state government agencies.

West Virginia is one of the few rural states to mandate local government recycling. Only 4 of the 15 states which have less than half of their population residing in a federally defined standard metropolitan area have mandated local government recycling (Arkansas, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia).' West Virginia is the only rural state that requires municipalities to enact a mandatory recycling ordinance. Six rural states set waste reduction goals rather than mandating recycling (Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota), another mandates state agency recycling only (Wyoming), and three lack even goals for

Most rural states have not mandated recycling because landfill shortages and tipping fees tend to be less severe in rural states than in urban ones. Also, transportation costs in rural states commonly increase the cost of recycling above the cost of sending recyclable materials to landfills. Moreover, funding and resource limitations in rural areas often prevent long-term planning for integrated solid waste management (The Minnesota Project 1987).

Of the 43 states which currently mandate local government recycling or set waste reduction goals, 35 provide grants and three provide loans to local governments for start-up costs. West Virginia is one of 19 states that provide grants for start-up costs, but do not provide grants for operating expenses. Landfill taxes are the most common source of funding for state recycling grants and loans (21 states). General revenues and special fees (e.g. disposal tax on tires) are also common sources of funding. West Virginia currently uses a $2 per ton landfill tax to support its recycling efforts. Half of the funds generated by this tax go into a Recycling Assistance Fund, which is used to assist municipalities and counties in the development of recycling programs. Priority in the allocation of these funds is given to those municipalities and counties which are required by state law to have a recycling program. The remaining funds are distributed to Solid Waste Authorities, counties and cities without recycling mandates, and regional recycling cooperatives.

Recently, several states have experienced a decline in the amount of revenue available for recycling programs. Ironically, the decline is partly explained by the success of recycling and composting programs. These programs have reduced the flow of solid waste materials into landfills and, consequently, the total amount of revenue generated by taxes on landfilled materials (Rabasca 1993). Also, states which use general funds to support their recycling grant and loan programs (such as California, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Vermont) have reduced state funding for recycling programs due to other budgetary pressures. If this pattern is repeated in other states, as expected, funding for recycling grants and loans across the nation is likely to fall and the burden for financing recycling programs will continue to devolve from the state level to local governments and consumers through increased garbage fees and/or business taxes.

Municipal Government Responses to
Mandated Recycling in West Virginia

The 1992 grant applications to the Recycling Assistance Fund managed by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources were used to gather information about municipal recycling plans in West Virginia. Also, individuals responsible for the recycling programs in all 15 cities with populations over 10,000 were surveyed during the summer of 1993 by mail and telephone to gather up-to-date information on their recycling programs and to solicit their opinions about the state mandates and related solid waste management issues. Administrators in the following 15 cities were contacted: Beckley, Bluefield, Charleston, Clarksburg, Fairmont, Huntington, Martinsburg, Morgantown, Moundsville, Parkersburg, South Charleston, St. Albans, Vienna, Weirton, and Wheeling.

Developing a mandatory curbside recycling program involves the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclable materials as well as the establishment of public education programs and the passage of appropriate ordinances. Possibly due to the complexity of this process, almost half of the municipalities (47 percent) reported that they had no plans for a recycling program prior to the state mandate. Only five municipalities had curbside collection programs prior to the state mandate. Parkersburg, Morgantown, and South Charleston already had citywide collection in place prior to the state mandate while Huntington and Martinsburg had pilot programs.

Ten of the 15 municipalities have planned to or are currently using municipal employees to collect materials. The remaining five municipalities have contracted recycling services to a private firm. Most of them will dep nd on either private firms (9) or non-profit entities (4) to process and market recyclable materials after collection.

The typical municipality in West Virginia currently collects five materials. Parkersburg collects the largest number of materials at 11, including appliances and tires. The most common materials collected are aluminum cans (in all 15 cities), clear glass (13 cities), colored glass (12 cities), tin/steel cans (10 cities), and newspaper (9 cities). Six cities collect plastics and six collect cardboard. Most cities (11) will employ plastic bins (14 gallon) rather than plastic bags to collect recyclable materials from households. Almost all programs will require households to co-mingle recyclable materials (i.e. place all items in one bag or bin) and have the collector separate these materials at curbside.

Public education is a necessary component of recycling program development because citizens are being asked to change their solid waste disposal behavior by separating recyclable materials from their trash. The emphasis of West Virginia's municipal education programs has been placed on working with public schools to educate the state's youth about recycling. Flyers, door hangers, brochures, media announcements, and speakers to community groups were also common methods used to announce and educate the public about recycling programs.

Most education efforts have focused on household preparation of materials for recycling collection (rinsing out cans, removing labels, etc.). Reducing the amount of solid waste generated (source reduction) has tended to be a minor component of municipal public education despite being the state government's highest priority. For example, municipal education programs generally do not focus on altering consumer behavior to reduce the amount of trash being landfilled, i.e. urging use of canvas bags instead of paper or plastic grocery bags, promotion of backyard composting, and buying in bulk to reduce packaging.

At the time the survey was administered (June 1993), slightly more than half of the municipalities (8) had not yet passed the mandatory participation ordinance required by state law, though most had drafted an ordinance. Only one respondent, from the city of Huntington, mentioned plans to add personnel to ensure compliance with the recycling ordinance.

Survey respondents were asked about current or anticipated problems with their municipality's recycling program. Nationally, market availability, program cost, and public participation are the three most common problems with recycling programs (Waste Age 1993). These same problems exist in West Virginia. Five of the respondents cited the lack of funding, both present and future, as a problem with their municipality's recycling program, four mentioned that recycling was not a costeffective program, four cited the lack of participation by households and/or businesses, and three mentioned inadequate markets for recyclable materials.

When respondents were asked to prioritize their opinions about the state recycling mandates, they indicated that the mandates were both necessary to preserve landfill capacity and were also an additional tax burden on city residents. These responses suggest a sense that the respondents viewed recycling as a burden to citizens, but one that was necessary for landfill conservation. The respondents also indicated that the mandates were not regarded as an unnecessary intrusion into municipal decision-making and, interestingly, they did not view these mandates as an opportunity to expand city services. This latter finding is somewhat surprising because research on bureaucratic behavior suggests that agency administrators usually utilize any opportunity to expand their budget and agency size. This allows them to increase their power, enhance their job security, and improve their chances for a salary increase (Niskanen 1971; Peltzman 1976; Stroup and Baden 1983). The difference in attitude on the part of West Virginia's municipal administrators may stem from the fact that they face relatively severe fiscal constraints and must confront their tax-paying constituency on a more intimate basis than federal or state officials.

Respondents were also asked whether their municipality would have had a recycling program without the state mandates. One-third said there would be no recycling program at this time because recycling programs were not viewed as being cost-effective and/or markets for recyclable materials were inadequate. Two-thirds of the respondents said that their municipality already had or was considering a recycling program prior to the mandate. However, only half of this group (33 percent of all respondents) indicated that their municipality would have had a curbside recycling program without the state mandates.

Recycling Assistance Fund

As mentioned previously, the Recycling Assistance Fund was created to assist recycling program development. Revenue for this fund is provided annually by a $1 tax per ton on solid waste disposed in West Virginia's landfills. In 1993, more than $1.8 million was distributed from the Recycling Assistance Fund to municipalities ($1.25 million), Solid Waste Authorities ($432,960), and regional cooperatives ($117,580). The maximum allowable grant was $100,000 per municipality, but cooperative efforts among counties or municipalities were allowed to apply for more.

Table 4 shows how the grant funds for 15 municipalities were used. Municipalities typically used the funds for recycling materials distributed to households (bins or bags plus education materials) and investment in collection equipment (either trucks or trailers). Grant funds were used to hire recycling coordinators in only four municipalities.

Respondents were asked their opinions on the adequacy of the Recycling Assistance Fund for their planned recycling programs as well as their future expectations for funding. Only one respondent considered the funding to be very good, and only four considered it to be adequate. Most respondents indicated that the level of funding was either not very good (8) or terrible (1). More than half of the respondents (8) thought that state government should pay for the recycling programs or at least renew grants for another year. Because grant funds cannot be used to pay for existing recycling services, several respondents indicated that they regarded this funding as a one-time occurrence. Future grant funds were seen as going to construct material recovery facilities and composting facilities or to support innovative and/or successful programs.

The revenue available in the Recycling Assistance Fund is expected to vary somewhat from year to year because the volume of waste landfilled in West Virginia varies from year to year. Since the state's total landfill capacity is expected to be approximately 2.8 million tons in 1995, the Recycling Assistance Fund could provide as much as $2.8 million annually (Diener et al. 1993b) .2 However, the Fund is projected to provide about $2.2 million annually because the volume of solid waste entering the state's landfills will most likely be substantially below capacity limits. Presently, public landfills accept approximately 56 percent of their capacity limits and private landfills accept approximately 88 percent of their capacity limits (Jordan 1993).

2 The 2.8 million ton landfill capacity projection does not include the proposed 50,000 ton per month Capels Resources Landfill in McDowell County. While approved by voters in a November 1992 referendum, the construction of this landfill remains in doubt.

Recycling Economics

Recycling programs generate three economic benefits for municipal governments. They generate revenue from the sale of recyclable materials, extend the useful life of landfills by reducing the volume of materials sent to them, and reduce the cost of collecting and transporting materials to landfills because there is less garbage to collect and transport. Unfortunately, except for aluminum cans, the cost of curbside recycling is greater than the revenue generated from the sale of recyclable materials. This means that the savings realized by diverting materials from landfills is typically not used to reduce sanitation fees. Instead, the savings are used to offset the expenses of operating the curbside recycling program.

The research literature suggests that the savings recycling programs generate by diverting materials from landfills can fully offset their recycling program's operating losses, but it depends on program cost efficiencies and the market conditions for recyclable materials (Stucky and Tyner 1991; Apotheker 1992; Stedge et al. 1992). In West Virginia, none of the 15 municipalities mandated to operate a curbside recycling program projected that their recycling program would pay for itself.

Presently, the total cost of collecting, processing, and marketing recyclable materials in a curbside collection program ranges from $1 to $3 per month per household (Apotheker 1992).

Most municipalities in West Virginia will either increase sanitation fees or subsidize their curbside recycling program from their own budgets to make up the difference between operating losses and benefits derived from diverting materials from landfills. Vienna is currently the only municipality of the 15 which instituted a separate recycling fee to cover its recycling program's expenses. The recycling fee is currently $3 per month, per household.

Material Recovery Facilities

The processing and marketing of recyclable materials occurs at material recovery facilities. These facilities play a vital role in distinguishing recycling from landfill disposal. Both recycling and landfill disposal involve collection and storage of waste materials. However, recycling also involves an additional step. Recyclable materials are transformed into another product, within end markets.

Material recovery facilities are vital to the success of recycling programs because they both prepare recyclable materials for marketing and locate end markets. The lack of end markets for recyclable materials is considered the main problem facing recycling programs across the nation (Waste Age 1993).

There are two types of material recovery facilities. "Clean" facilities process and market either separated or co-mingled recyclable materials. "Dirty" material recovery facilities, in contrast, process and market recyclable materials from mixed municipal solid waste, i.e. garbage. West Virginia legislation allows municipalities with a population over 30,000 to use dirty material recovery facilities in lieu of mandatory recycling, but the Recycling Assistance Fund grant program provides funding for only clean material recovery facilities. Thus, this article examines the pros and cons of clean material recovery facilities only. Specifically, two interrelated questions about the development of clean material rec overy facilities in West Virginia are addressed. First, what role should the public sector play in the construction and operation of clean material recovery facilities 'in West Virginia? Second, are regional or local clean material recovery facilities more appropriate for West Virginia?

The Public Sector's Role

In 1992, there were 192 clean material recovery facilities in operation nationwide. Most of them (73 percent) are privately owned and operated (Glenn 1992b). In most cases, the public sector (generally municipal or county government) initiated the development of the material recovery facility by establishing a joint venture with a private contractor.

Joint ventures are generally viewed by the public sector as a convenient means of taking advantage of the private sector's expertise and familiarity with the proprietary technology necessary to design and operate a material recovery facility (NSWA 1992). At the same time, the joint venture allows the public sector to retain its ability to determine where and if the facility is built and to influence its operation. The public sector also provides the joint venture with greater representation of broad community interests and increases public access to the decision-making process about the construction and operation of the material recovery facility (Rassbach et al. 1992).

As indicated previously, 14 of the 15 municipalities in West Virginia that are required by the state to operate a recycling program plan to rely mainly on the private sector or on non-profit facilities to process and market their recyclable materials. Five of the mandated programs will process recyclable materials at private, out-of-state material recovery facilities, six will rely on private recycling facilities in West Virginia, and three will use material recovery facilities operated by Solid Waste Authorities in Kanawha and Raleigh counties.

Among survey respondents, some dissatisfaction was expressed with private recycling facilities because they were unwilling to pay what was considered to be a fair price for recyclable materials. Private recycling facilities have also been unwilling to accept some materials (e.g. newspapers) which municipalities would like to recycle. This is a problem for municipalities because state law mandates that they collect at least three recyclable

materials, even if private recycling facilities accept fewer than three. However, despite these concerns, Parkersburg is the only municipality in West Virginia that has decided to construct its own material recovery facility.

Local or Regional Facilities?

Material recovery facilities are expensive. Capital costs for the construction of a material recovery facility averages about $28,000 per ton of daily processing capacity, ranging from $7,500 to $77,000 per ton (Glenn 1992b). This wide range reflects different processing technologies and economies of size among these facilities. Also, a national survey of large material recovery facilities (processing from 100 to 300 tons per day) indicated that the average operating cost for processing comingled recyclable materials was about $50 per ton (NSWA 1992). This was higher than the revenues received from selling recyclable materials. Thus, material recovery facilities generally charge a processing fee for each ton of recyclable materials they receive, to cover their costs.

West Virginia's municipalities face a dilemma when deciding their role in the development of material recovery facilities. Most of the 15 municipalities plan to separate recyclable materials at curbside. This collection method is more costly than co-mingled collection because curbside separation requires specialized trucks and additional personnel on the trucks to separate the materials at the curb (Stedge et al. 1992). However, curbside separation allows West Virginia municipalities to use existing recycling facilities rather than develop their own material recovery facilities.. The dilemma is: should West Virginia's municipalities continue to separate recyclable materials at curbside and rely on existing recycling facilities to process their recyclable materials or can they save money by moving to co-mingled collection and becoming involved in the development of material recovery facilities in West Virginia?

There has been a lot of interest across the country in examining the potential economic efficiencies created by the development of large material recovery facilities (Shaw and Park 1989; Chang 1992; Glenn 1992b; Swartzbaugh et al. 1993). Larger facilities have lower capital costs per ton of material processed than smaller facilities. They also have price advantages because of the relatively large volume of materials they deliver to end markets. For example, the average cost of processing recyclable materials falls from $123 to $74 per ton when a material recovery facility's processing capacity is expanded from 10 to 100 tons per day (Swartzbaugh et al. 1993).

Given these economic efficiencies, there was strong support among survey respondents for the formation of regional material recovery facilities in West Virginia. For example, based on estimates of the volume of recyclable materials expected by the Kanawha Solid Waste Authority and the city of Huntington, Kanawha County and Huntington could potentially support a material recovery facility with a processing capacity of about 127 tons per day. A regional facility located midway between Charleston and Huntington would save Charleston's residents and businesses about $26,000 per month ($31 per ton times 833 tons per month) compared to the processing of recyclable materials by a facility solely for Charleston. Similarly, Huntington's residents and businesses would save approximately $23,000 per month ($37 per ton times 625 tons per month) (Kamber Engineering 1993; Swartzbaugh et al. 1993).

However, regional material recovery facilities are probably not economically feasible in most other areas of West Virginia because of the state's relatively sparse population. The cost of transporting recyclable materials over long distances rapidly erodes the cost efficiencies derived from processing materials at regional material recovery facilities in rural areas.

There are three other major obstacles, besides transportation expenses, that must be overcome before regional material recovery facilities are feasible in West Virginia. First, municipal governments are reluctant to make long term commitments to finance material recovery facilities. Second, municipalities are reluctant to commit to long term contracts to deliver recyclable materials because city council memberships tend to change over a series of elections, causing the councils , policies to change as well. Third, due to the small size of West Virginia's cities, cooperation and commitment are required among a relatively large number of different solid waste haulers (including both municipalities and private firms) to generate the volume of materials necessary for a regional facility to be cost-effective.

Three strategies are currently being pursued in West Virginia to develop regional material recovery facilities. First, the municipal government which collects recyclable materials finances the facility's construction. Only Parkersburg has decided to take the financial risks of construction. These risks include a volatile market for recyclable materials and an uncertain flow of recyclable materials which could cause average processing costs to rise.

Parkersburg officials have worked closely with the Wood County Solid Waste Authority in planning the construction of a material recovery facility with the capacity to handle a regional volume of recyclable materials. The city plans to process and market its recyclable materials and accept materials from other recycling programs with a processing charge (Lichiello 1993). Currently, Parkersburg operates a temporary site for processing recyclable materials until the planning and construction of the material recovery facility is completed.

The second strategy is to spread the development risks through public/private partnerships. Solid Waste Authorities in Kanawha and Jefferson Counties have actively pursued this method by working with private solid waste haulers. Private haulers are being asked to make commitments to deliver a set volume of recyclable materials and to provide financial resources for the facilities' construction and operating costs. The Solid Waste Authorities have obtained grant funding from the Recycling Assistance Fund to support the facility's construction and to work with other public and private solid waste haulers to increase the volume of material.

The third strategy is to operate a material recovery facility in conjunction with a landfill. 'The Raleigh County Solid Waste Authority operates a facility adjacent to their landfill which accepts separated recyclable materials, at no charge, from local and regional haulers (public or private) who dispose of their garbage in the landfill. The processing and marketing costs for recyclable materials are then incorporated into landfill fees to ensure that these costs are covered by the Solid Waste Authority.

Related Solid Waste Management Issues

Recycling programs are only one component of an integrated system of solid waste management. Besides recycling, other important solid waste issues in West Virginia include the siting of solid waste facilities (landfills, material recovery facilities, and composting facilities), development of yard waste composting facilities, source reduction activities, and the availability and cost of landfill disposal.

Siting

The process for deciding the physical location of a solid waste facility and obtaining permits necessary for facility operation is handled by the Solid Waste Authorities, Division of Environmental Protection, and the Public Service Commission. The approval process is often delayed by public opposition to the siting of these facilities (O'Hare, Bacow and Sanderson 1983; Lake 1987; Himmelberger, Ratick and White 1991).

Eleven of the 15 municipalities surveyed indicated that they have been or will soon be involved in the process of siting at least one solid waste facility. Eight are in the process of, or are considering, siting a compost facility, three are siting a recycling facility, and two are expanding landfills. Public opposition was not mentioned as a problem by respondents for any of the facilities, including the two landfills. The only siting problems noted were external to municipalities-the lack of markets for recyclables and the lack of regulations for composting facilities.

A lack of public opposition to publicly owned solid waste facilities is in sharp contrast to recent siting attempts by the private sector in West Virginia. For example, attempts in recent years by private firms to locate facilities in Barbour County, Webster County, Putnam County, Monongalia County, and Raleigh County were met with substantial public opposition and were canceled.

Yard Waste Composting

The state initially imposed a ban on the disposal of yard waste at landfills starting June 1, 1994. This created a great deal of interest in composting yard waste and other organic portions of solid waste. Composting is the decomposition of organic wastes in which air, water, and heat from microbial action combine to produce a stable soil amendment. Only three respondents indicated no interest in the development of a composting facility in their municipality. Most municipalities are currently in the information gathering and/or site development stage for these facilities. Two respondents mentioned (in June 1993) that their municipality was waiting for state regulations on yard waste composting facilities before developing a plan. These regulations were subsequently approved during the 1994 legislative session. The legislature also extended the deadline for the ban on the disposal of yard waste at landfills to January 1, 1996.

Composting facilities must be properly constructed and operated to prevent environmental problems such as odors and leachate run-off (Diener et al. 1993a). Proper regulation of these facilities is vital to public acceptance. For example, Michigan banned yard waste from landfills prior to the existence of local or state regulations for composting facilities. As a result, numerous yard waste composting facilities were built that lacked appropriate environmental safeguards and were subsequently closed due to public opposition created by environmental problems (Glenn 1992a).

Collection and composting of yard and other organic wastes could be used by municipalities to meet the state's recycling mandate. Under state law, solid waste for composting (yard, food or paper waste) can be specified as recyclable materials by either a municipality or county commission. Composting of organic wastes has a number of advantages compared to collection of cans, bottles, paper, and plastic. For example, composting provides a disposal outlet for yard waste which is now banned from West Virginia's landfills and transportation costs are low because local markets exist for compost (examples are nurseries, landscaping businesses, and homeowners) (see Diener et al. 1993b).

Landfills

Landfills in West Virginia are becoming fewer, more costly, and under private ownership. In 1992, there were 41 operating landfills in West Virginia (24 were publicly owned and 17 were private) (WVDEP 1992). Only 21 landfills are expected to remain open following the December 1994 deadline for meeting the state's environmental regulations concerning landfill liners and leachate collection systems (9 public and 12 private).

The primary cause of this decline in the number of landfills has been the relatively high cost of complying with these environmental regulations (approximately $1.5 to $3.5 million for liners, leachate collection systems, groundwater monitoring, etc.) (Sanders 1993; Dilger 1994).

Fewer landfills, higher landfill taxes (presently at $8.75 per ton) and increased costs for environmental protection have raised the price of disposal at landfills and caused the movement from public to privately owned and operated landfills. Landfill prices, called tipping fees, increased an average of 65 percent for survey municipalities between 1990/91 and 1992/93 ($18.60 to $30.60 per ton). Over half of permitted landfill capacity (52 percent) was at publicly owned landfills as of December, 1992. However, by the end of 1994, publicly owned landfills will account for only 29 percent of West Virginia's landfill capacity. At that time, the total permitted capacity of all landfills in the state will be about double West Virginia's current solid waste generation (235,000 tons per month compared to 130,000 tons per month) due to the increased number of larger, privately owned and operated landfills (Diener et al. 1993b).

For the most part, West Virginia's 15 largest municipalities will no longer control the landfill capacity available to them. Only Charleston and Huntington will operate their own landfills by the end of 1994. The end result is that most municipalities will be paying higher tipping fees at landfills owned by other entities. Recycling programs will enable municipalities to avoid some of the increased cost of tipping fees by diverting recyclable materials from landfills. However, recycling programs may not be as effective in preserving landfill capacity as expected because of the increasing private ownership of landfills.

Extending the useful life of landfills was one of the state legislature's primary objectives when adopting the recycling mandate. However, this objective may not be reached because private landfills in West Virginia are much more likely to receive out-of-state solid waste than public landfills (Jordan 1993) and owners of private landfills have an economic incentive to replace at least a portion, if not every ton, of recyclable material diverted from West Virginia landfills with solid waste materials generated from out-of-state sources. Currently, private landfills are not required to save landfill space for West Virginia's solid waste when excess capacity exists. Public landfills (especially those owned by municipalities themselves) are more likely to conserve landfill capacity to extend landfill life rather than accept out-of-state solid waste to keep revenues up (Jordan 1993).

Conclusions

Curbside recycling programs have been mandated in 15 West Virginia cities during a period of rising solid waste costs. These rising costs are primarily due to the imposition of environmental regulations designed to protect and improve West Virginia's water quality and partly due to the cost of operating recycling programs. Although the state's environmental regulations on landfills are appropriate and recycling efforts provide benefits that cannot be measured solely in dollar terms, they place local political leaders in a difficult position. They are faced with the undesirable prospect of having to raise sanitation fees to meet the increased cost of landfill disposal while also requiring constituents to put forth more effort (separating recyclables from garbage) in waste disposal. Although recycling programs can help reduce future sanitation fee increases by diverting materials away from landfills, they generally will not reduce costs relative to past rates for two reasons. First, past sanitation rates were kept low, at least in part, because they were based on the costs of landfilling materials at sites that lacked environmental safeguards such as liners and leachate collection systems. Second, the expense of collecting and processing recyclable materials currently exceeds the amounts generated by their sale.

Unfortunately, the public may not realize that recycling is not a profit-making venture. As a result, local government officials must make a concerted effort to educate the public on the economics of recycling and landfills. The public must be convinced that recycling can reduce future cost increases, but, unless end markets change, costs are going to rise (see Figure 1 for an example). If this education does not occur, there is a good chance that the public will blame sanitation cost increases solely on the visible addition of curbside recycling programs. This misperception could cause the public to refuse to cooperate with local government officials, endangering the success of the recycling programs. It could also cause the public to oust local government officials they perceive to be responsible for increasing their sanitation fees. It could also increase public support for cost reduction strategies such as the privatization of municipal sanitation services.

If elected officials wish to maintain recycling as a viable part of the solution to the state's solid waste disposal problems, they must inform the public that past sanitation fees were kept artificially low by not requiring landfills to have liners and leachate collection systems. They must also inform the public that recycling offers long-range economic benefits by diverting materials from landfills but cannot, given present market conditions, pay for itself in the short run.

Another solid waste problem facing municipalities is the impending ban on yard waste from landfills. One alternative available to municipalities is to designate yard waste as a recyclable material. Thus, composting could be used to divert yard waste from landfills and meet the recycling mandate. The composting option may be cheaper and more convenient than recycling for some municipalities, particularly those in rural areas where transportation costs for recyclable materials are prohibitive.

No Recycling With RecyclingWithout Recycling

Mandated recycling and environmental improvements of West Virginia's landfills have created a dilemma for the state. Prior solid waste legislation was motivated, in part, by citizen concern about out-of-state garbage disposal in West Virginia landfills (Dickstein and Sayre 1989). The implementation of this legislation, which added strict controls on both existing and future landfills, has led to the replacement of public landfills with privately owned ones because local governments were unable to meet the costs to upgrade existing facilities. Private companies, with greater resources, then came in to fill that gap by building larger and more efficient landfills. As recycling and other landfill diversions (such as source reduction and yard waste composting) take in-state garbage away from West Virginia's landfills, private landfill owners are able to replace these diversions with out-of-state garbage. Thus, the state has developed policies which could potentially lead to increased out-of-state garbage disposal in West Virginia with very little conservation of landfill space.

Recommendations

-The state should change present legislation from mandates for curbside recycling programs to statespecified waste reduction goals for local governments.

Reduction goals are currently utilized in a majority (8 out of 15) of rural states comparable to West Virginia. Goals, as opposed to mandates, would provide West Virginia's municipalities with the flexibility necessary to pursue those waste management strategies (e.g. source reduction, drop-off recycling programs, and composting) which may be more compatible with local resources. For example, rather than providing citywide curbside recycling, it may be more cost-effective for municipalities to target curbside collection to some areas and maintain drop-off programs in other areas.

If the state mandate for recycling programs remains in place, these programs should be given top priority in the allocation of Recycling Assistance Fund grants until they are able to pay for themselves.

West Virginia's municipalities will be in a better financial position to support the development of a recycling infrastructure in the state if mandated recycling programs continue to receive support from the Recycling Assistance Fund. For example, they could seek the cooperation of the private sector and/or Solid Waste Authorities to develop cost-efficient, regional material recovery facilities.

If the state mandate for recycling programs remains in place, the state should fully subsidize these programs, either by increasing the state's $1 per ton fee on solid waste disposed in the state's landfills or by providing additional funds from general revenues.

Additional funds could be used to subsidize existing recycling programs and to start programs in communities and counties that are not subject to the state recycling mandate. Also, a higher per ton fee on solid waste disposed of in the state's landfills would create an economic disincentive that would make it more difficult for landfill operators in West Virginia to replace recycled materials with out-of-state garbage.

References

Apotheker, Steve. 1992. "Finding a Formula for Successful Recycling Collection." Resource Recycling. 11(10):28-39. Chang, Ni-bih. 1992. "Econometric Analysis of the Construction and Operating Costs of Material Recovery Facilities in the U.S.A." The Journal of Resource Management and Technology. 20(l):27-37.

Dickstein, Carla and Greg Sayre. 1989. "Socioeconomic Impacts of Landfills in West Virginia." The West Virginia  Public Affairs Reporter. 6:4 (Fall): 1 -6.

Diener, Robert G., Alan R. Collins, John H. Martin, William B. Byran. 1993a. "Composting of Source-Separated Municipal Solid Waste for Agricultural Utilization-A Conceptual Approach for Closing the Loop." Applied Engineering in
Agriculture. In press.

Diener, Robert G., Alan R. Collins, and John H. Martin. 1993b. West Virginia Solid Waste Management: A 1993 Status Report and Blueprint for the Future. West Virginia University Experiment Station, Morgantown, WV.

Dilger, Robert Jay. 1994. "Clean Water and Its Implications for Economic Development in West Virginia," in West Virginia in the 1990s: Opportunities for Economic Progress. Eds.

Robert Jay Dilger and Tom Stuart Witt. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.

Glenn, James. 1992a. "The Challenge of Yard Waste Composting." Biocycle. 33(9):30-32.

Glenn, James. 1992b. "Maturation of Materials Recovery Facilities." Biocycle. 33(8):34-39.

Himmelberger, Jeffrey, Samuel Ratick and Allen White. 1991. "Compensation for Risks: Host Community Benefits in Siting Locally Unwanted Facilities." Environmental Management. 15:647-658.

Jordan, Charles. 1993. Presentation at Agricultural Education Teachers Summer Workshop, July 26. Acting Director, West Virginia Solid Waste Management Board, Charleston, WV.

Kamber Engineering. 1992. "Feasibility of the Regional Collection of Recyclables for Processing at the Jefferson County MRF." Report prepared for the Jefferson County Solid Waste Authority, Ranson, WV.

Lake, Robert W. 1987. "Introduction." In Resolving Locational Conflict. Ed. Robert Lake. New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Urban Policy Research.

Lichiello, John. 1993. Personal Communication, August 5. Program Coordinator, Wood County Solid Waste Authority, Parkersburg, WV.

National Solid Wastes Management Association. 1992. "The Cost To Recycle at a Materials Recovery Facility." Washington, D.C.

Niskanen, William. 1971. Representative Bureaucracy. New York: Aldine-Atherton.

O'Hare, Michael, Lawrence Bacow, and Debra Sanderson. 1988. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Peltzman, Stephen. 1976. "Toward a More General Theory of Regulation." Journal of Law and Economics. 19:211-240.

Rabasca, Lisa. 1993. "1993 State Recycling Budget Survey." Waste Age. 24(4):46-48.

Rassbach, Kate, Peter Deibler, and Michael Brown. 1992. "Institutional Strategies for Developing MRFs." Biocycle. 33(4):70-72.

Sanders, Pat. 1993. "State facing landfill shortage." Charleston Daily Mail. January 27, pp. 1 A, 7A.

Shaw, Lowell K. and William M. Park. 1989. "The Economic Feasibility of Rural Recycling: Three Case Studies." University of Tennessee, Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 89-15, Knoxville, TN.

Stedge, Gerald D., John M. Halstead, and Douglas E. Morris. 1992. "An Economic Analysis of Alternative Recycling Systems." University of New Hampshire, Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report #127, Durham, NH.

Steuteville, Ronald, Nora Goldstein, and Ken Grotz. 1993. "The State of Garbage In America." Biocycle 34(6):32-37.

Stucky, Donna J. and William E. Tyner. 1991. "An Economic Feasibility Study of an Urban and a Rural Recycling Program." Purdue University, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 626, West Lafayette, IN.

Swartzbaugh, Joseph T., David S. Duvall, Luis F. Diaz, and George S. Savage. 1993. Recycling Equipment and Technology for Municipal Solid Waste. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corporation.

Stroup, Ronald and John Baden. 1983. Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental Management Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. The Minnesota Project. 1987. Case Studies in Rural Solid Waste Recycling. Report prepared for the Ford Foundation.

Waste Age. 1993. "Market Availability Still a Barrier." 24(4):17.

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). 1992. "Status of Solid Waste Landfills in West Virginia." Report dated December 9, from the Solid Waste Management Office, Charleston, WV.