Solid waste has emerged as one of the leading public policy issues of the 1990s. In West Virginia the solid waste issue has exploded around the siting of new landfills and particularly landfills which are being developed to take in out-of-state garbage.

Eighty percent of the nation's waste is disposed of in landfills. As the production of garbage increases each year, landfill sites are diminishing. Indeed, by 1993 one-third of existing landfills will be full. The shrinkage of landfills is most severe in the densely populated northeastern states.' In addition, closure of existing landfills is, at best, problematic because of the lack of alternative waste disposal methods. West Virginia, therefore, has emerged as an attractive site for other northeastern states looking to export their garbage as relatively cheap rural land is available within 500 miles of half the population of the United States.

Little information has been available to West Virginia state and county officials and citizens concerning the socioeconomic impacts of siting new landfills or expanding existing ones. This report evaluates the socioeconomic impacts of such sitings. It identifies specific items of concern to West Virginians and assesses the extent to which there are data locally or nationally that can verify the various socioeconomic consequences. Assessment of gaps in information is made as well.

This report is based on information gathered through a review of existing research, newspaper articles, reports from other states, public hearings, a survey of West Virginia landfills, and interviewswith 45 keyWestVirginia individuals involved in the landfill issue-landfill operators, engineers, garbage haulers, members of citizen organizations, public officials, newspaper reporters, and regulators. These interviews were conducted by telephone or in person in late 1988 and early 1989. Because of the relationship between environmental health issuesand social and economic issues, this report also devotes some attention to the engineering, scientific, and medical literature concerning environmental and health effects of landfills.

'See The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. Draft Report of the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DCi US Environmental Protection Agency, September 1988, 6-16.

Overview of Solid Waste Industry

Changes in the solid waste industry and national demand for landfill space will influence the various options open to West Virginia's landfills. From all indications, the solid waste industry is booming. Waste disposal firms were some of Wall Street's best stock performers in the 1980s. Presentlythere is a rapid expansion of the leading waste management firms and a jockeying for position in a growing marketplace. Growth of these firms is occurring through privatization of municipal solid waste collection services and landfills and from acquisitions of private companies. Vertical integration also is increasing in the industry, as some of the largerwaste management companies are undertaking garbage collection, recycling, landfilling, and incineration.

Although economic concentration in the industry is still relatively low, it is growing. At the moment, the six largest publicly-controlled firms hold about 20 percent of market share. New regulatory requirements for landfills, on the other hand, are expected to cause a shakeout in the landfill industry. Small, local operations will simply not have the capital to invest in the new technology required in the modern landfill operation. In West Virginia, 15 regional landfills are expected to replace most existing operations.

The Landfill Market

In the past 10 yearsthe United States has closed morethan 70 percent of its landfill sites. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, another2,275 landfills will close in the next five years. Landfill closures areworse in the Northeast than in the rest of the country. Philadelphia, for example, exported 1.5 million tons of solid waste in 1988, and Boston exported 800,000 tons, reflecting the changing landfill situation.

At the same time, costs of solid waste disposal are increasing nationwide, but especially in the Northeast. A survey of selected landfills by the National Solid Waste Management Association showed that the national average refuse disposal cost doubled from 1986 to 1988. The survey reported that the average landfill tipping fee in the Northeast was $45.48 in 1988 as compared to an average of $10.67 found in a December 1988 survey of West Virginia landfills.

Moreover, the closure of landfills has led to a kind of "spot landfill market," or, more commonly, an "out-of-state garbage" landfill demand. This market has grown to 10 million tons of garbage a year, costing taxpayers $1 billion a year. Towns in New York and Massachusetts are paying as much as $138 and $140 per ton to export their garbage. In order to cut costs, east coast haulers are transporting garbage to out-of-state dumps and returning with foodstuffs or coal. Presently no laws prevent hauling garbage in refrigerator trucks or rail cars, leading health experts to warn of the possible adverse health effects of such a practice.

Thus, the demand for West Virginia landfill space will remain strong for quite some time. Although the spot landfill market issupposed to be a temporary solution untilthe Northeast develops alternative waste disposal methods such as incinerators or recycling programs, problems have emerged which will slow the development of both alternatives.

Economic Impacts

Revenues from Landfills

The most obvious positive economic benefitsto be derived from landfills are county and state taxes (property taxes on private landfills), assessment fees based on the tonnage they take in, and additional host fees to a local community or county.

Up to this point, property taxes on landfills have not been a major source of revenue. However, with the shortage of landfills in the country and the difficulty of siting new ones, private landfills are expected to increase in value and could generate greater tax revenues.

The revenues generated from assessment fees permitted under a new West Virginia law passed in 1989 amounted to almost $1.5 million in the first eight months of collection. Thesefees pay for enforcement, reclamation of open dumps, and building of new solid waste facilities. In addition, a local county is permitted to charge a $.50 per ton surcharge for capital improvements.

Private developers have also offered host fees to counties willing to site larger landf ills in order to compensate them for taking waste from outside their areas. The agreements range from $.10 per ton to $3 per ton, which could generate anywhere from $250,000 to more than $2 million a year. In some cases, the host fees represent sums equal to the entire county budget. Further research is needed to determine whether even higher host fees could be negotiated under present market conditions and whether these fees will cover all the landfill costs over the long run.

Job Creation

Landfills themselves are not big job generators. Of the landfills surveyed in this study, only six reported that they currently employ more than seven people. This figure includes both full- and part-time workers.

Landfills do create a small amount of indirect employment through the expenditures for equipment, supplies and services in the local community and from employee spending. A landfill taking 200 tons a day is projected to generate 21 additional jobs in the community, not including those generated by hauling operations. For larger landfills, indirect job creation increases roughly in proportion to the increase in size.

Even large landfills create relatively few jobs in proportion to the revenues generated. However, the hauling operations can add considerably to the number of local jobs. For example, a landfill taking 2,000 tons of waste per day is estimated to employ approximately 130 local workers. This figure includes about 110 drivers averaging $24,000 to $26,000 a year in pay; 12 heavy equipment operators making approximately $30,000 plus overtime a year; and four to six laborers making $6 to $8 per hour. The positions also pay fringe benefits. In some of the more rural areas of the state, a landfill could become a major employer.

Tipping Fees to Local Communities

Under the new solid waste regulations passed by the Wes Virginia Legislature in 1989, the cost of waste disposal wil rise in order to pay for the costs of upgrading the quality o landfills. It is expected that tipping fees (the waste disposa cost per ton) will rise to $20-$25 a ton based on a landfil taking 200 tons a day, the minimum tonnage expected t( support a state-of-the-art landfill. In-county tipping fees c the landfills surveyed in the state presently range from les than $5 a ton to over $15 a ton, with an average of $10.67 a tor Thus, the increased tippi ng fees are expected to add $2 to $ to the monthly disposal costs for each household.

If a community decides to take out-of-state garbage, it ca subsidize its own tipping fees from the higher fees charge for out-of-state waste. The tipping fees that a county woul pay would depend on how much out-of-state garbage it too in or how well it negotiated with a private landfill operato Higher tipping fees charged to out-of-state dumpers ca significantly lower local garbage service for a communit, Some communities might opt to subsidize local tipping feE by utilization of a sliding scale tipping fee for low incorr persons, with the state making up the cost differential. Bi the reality is that waste disposal will cost more in thefuture E long as there is a conscious attempt to preserve the enviroi ment. However, if the tipping fees are too steep, mar counties fear the expense will be an incentive to durr illegally, despite stiff penalties in the new regulations.

Property Values

Because of the perceived devaluation of property resultir from the placement of landfills, owners of property adjace to landfills in West Virginia are allowed to be compensated I a 15 to 20 percent reduction of appraised value if proper owners ask for such compensation. Whether these devalu tions reflect actual market valuation is debatable from tl present literature on property value impact of landfills. TI research demonstrates that the property value impact frc these facilities (as well as other controversial facilities) influenced by other variables such as overall market factc in the area and, consequently, is very difficult to predict. T impact has variously been found to be negative, positive, a nonexistent.

Other factors which appear to influence the impact o sanitary landfill are the quality of its operation, the public surrounding the landfill, and the public fear and anticipation of contamination. Contaminated properties have been shown to have a clear-cut negative impact on property values.

Sanitary landfills may have a positive impact on surrounding property values after they have been closed and converted to new usage. However, the only research into post-landfill property values is based upon specific case examples and this research indicates rising values. If a high value end use for a landfill is determined from the outset, it may stimulate positive increases in values of adjacent properties. One way to mitigate the fear of property devaluation is through a value assurance program which would guarantee a market value for all adjacent properties.

Impact on Industrial Location

Landfills are considered an important infrastructure requirement for businesses. Thus, landfill developers have suggested that landfills can be a positive factor in attracting businesses to the state. However, there is no clear evidence that a landfill is a major consideration fora business location decision. Fantus Corporation of Chicago, a nationally known consulting firm specializing in industrial location decisions, contends that landfills are at best a minor factor in business location decisions.

On the other hand, the importance of sanitary landfills in industrial location decisions certainly deserves further research. With greater difficulties foreseen in siting landfills throughout the country, the ability of a local community to provide adequate, economical waste disposal may become an importantfactor in determining a "good business climate" and a significant cost for businesses with high disposal requirements.

Indirectly, landfills may have an important effect on industrial location in communities which use rail linesto import garbage. The increase in rail transport from a landfill's business can have significant positive influence in keeping rail lines open in rural areas and maintaining the necessary infrastructure for future industrial location decisions.

Impact on Tourism

The impact of landfills on tourism has been hypothesized to have both positiveand negative effects. Landfill supporters claim that landfills provide improved disposal facilities that offer an alternative to illegal dumping. Landfill opponents, however, fear that the negative image created, as well as potential threats of pollution, can deter tourism. In fact, very little research has been done on this topic. It has been documented, however, that tourism can be severely hampered if a solid waste accident occurs, as was the case in the summer of 1988, when garbage washed up on New Jersey beaches. More research is required to evaluate fully the potential landfill impact on tourism.

Impact on Wildlife and Recreation

Wildlife preservation affects not only the tourist industry, but recreational opportunities for West Virginians. The actual landfill site, road construction and increased traffic, and potential contamination of air and water could potentially disturb wildlife habitats and affect the recreation industry. Little systematic research has yet to be done on this aspect of the problem.

The Impact on Economic Development

Advocates of large landfills have maintained that landfills are a potential economic development strategy for boosting local economies in West Virginia. Although it is true that the revenues from landfills could be sizable, other important economic development issues need to be considered, such as how a county uses the revenues and whether the opportunity costs of landfill development are high.

Some counties haveconsidered using landfill revenuesfor infrastructure investments such as sewer and water lines, industrial parks, and basic services. These expenditures may improve the economic development potential and attractiveness of an area, but in and of themselves do not lead to development. Changes may also be needed in local governmental and other institutional structures. Local public and private organizations will haveto learn to plan and implement economic development programs.

The impact of a "landfill strategy" in attracting ordeterring other industries is not fully known. There may be high opportunity costs for tourist development. If a landfill ends up polluting theenvironment, it will not only detractfrom the economic development potential of an area, but cleanup costs could be substantial. One possibility is allocating part of a host fee to a local environmental trust fund as a hedge against possible long-term disasters. However, no one knows what the long-term risks are or how large a trust fund is needed. As more funds are allocated to cover risks, less revenues are available to benefit the community.

Social Concerns

Environmental, Health, and Safety Concerns

Fears that landfills will pollute groundwater and contaminate the drinking water are the overwhelming concerns with regard to landfill impacts on the environment and public health. Of particular concern is the long-term impact on future generations. The public distrusts the ability of government agencies to properly regulate the kinds of wastes disposed of in landfills or to monitor performance of landfills adequately. Numerous cases of groundwater contamination from landfills have been cited in the literature. Consequences of the contamination of the drinking water have been well documented and include such problem areas as health, emotional stress, inability to sell houses, disruption of family and social life, and emergence of psychological problems. How people perceive the contamination has a great deal to do with the resulting impact. One study found those who lived closer to the landfill and families with young children were more vulnerable to all of the possible adverse effects of contamination.

The documented cases of contamination are seen by landfill developers as resulting from what is now considered outdated technology. The landfill industry argues that much has been learned about disposal technology and that present technology and monitoring systems will prevent contamination from occurring in the future. In fact, it is argued, modern landfills actually enhance the overall environment, and the public health and safety.

There is no question that modern landfills are safer than the older landfills in West Virginia. However, modern landfills do not yet have a long enough track record to provide the necessary documentation to validate their long-term impacts. Experts on landfills have differing opinions as to the safetyof the newtechnology. Although it isbeyond thescope of this report to evaluate the different technical andscientific claims as to the safety of landfills, the following key points emerge from the existing research which provides some basis for continuing environmental and health concerns:

1. All sanitary landfills receive some degree of hazardous wastes. In fact, normal household garbage contains some hazardous wastes. Small generators of hazardous wastes have been allowed to dispose of certain amounts into sanitary landfills. In addition, there is evidence of considerable illegal activity in the solid waste industry, and of illegal disposal of industrial hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills. The regulatory system is designed to have a check on all shipments of hazardous waste through what are called "manifests" which identify the type and source of waste. Manifests can be falsified despite penalties. The ability to regulate what comes into a landfill, therefore, isonlyasgood as the existing monitoring systems. Even if a landfill is carefully monitored, it is not possible to check every barrel of waste.

2. Modern landfills are designed to prevent leachate-the toxic water and fluids produced in landfills-from leaking into the environment. Studies have shown that municipal waste landfill leachates contain toxic chemicals in sufficient concentration to be potentially as harmful as leachate from industrial waste landfills. State-of-the-art landfills have several components that are designed to prevent leachate from leaking into the environment: a bottom liner, a leachate collection system, acoverto prevent moisturefrom entering, and a good natural hydrogeological setting to protect the earth from the movement of wastes. A landfill is not meant to hold the leachate forever, however. The leachate drains into the collection system and is then treated to drinking water standards in a waste water treatment facility. If leakage occurs, monitoring wells are set up in order to pinpoint immediately where the leak has occurred in the liner. The contaminated water is pumped out for treatment before the problem becomes severe.

3. A number of experts point to potential problems with the state-of-the-art technology. Synthetic and clay liners are fallible; leachate collection systems require constant oversight; and covers are vulnerable to erosion, penetration by the roots of shrubs and by animals, reptiles and insects, and bythesun. Furthermore, someexperts, including thoseatthe Environmental Protection Agency, hold that eventually all landfills will leak due to natural entropic forces that take place once a landfill is no longer maintained.

4. The risks for landfills, even state-of-the-art landfills, are uncertain. The public's perception of the risk involved differs greatly from that of the landfill industry's. The public's perception of risk is grounded on experiences of contamination in the past and the opinion of some experts that even modern landfills will eventually lead to environmental problems.

Impact of Increased Truck and Pail Traffic

The public's concerns over increased truck traffic focuses on greater congestion, stray litter on the highways and in towns, and safety problems with trucks. Many West Virginia roads are narrow, two-lane highwaysthat are perceived to be inadequate to handle the increased traffic. Increased truck traffic during the hours of transporting school children is also feared, creating a possible increase in the number of accidents involving children. Some citizens have documented frequent violations of safety and driving codes by garbage trucks, as well as one death that has occurred in the state.

Similarly, citizens fear increased accidents from rail transportation of solid waste. Since many railroads follow a major water source, a derailment might directly threaten water quality and safety.

Many of the negative influences of transporting solid waste can be mitigated by strict enforcement of driving and safety regulations, restricting transportation of solid waste during school transportation hours, requiring covered vehicles to prevent stray litter and, if necessary, requiring a landfill developer to build a separate access road to the landfill.

The Special Case of Out-of-State Garbage

"Out-of-state garbage" is the rubric for a host of other concerns which may be summarized as follows:

1. Greater adverse impact and risk due to large landfills. Private landfill developers who are interested in importing out-of-state garbage requirea largerscaleof operation and a higher rate of return on investment than what a publicly owned landfill might require. Many citizens consider the siting of large private landfills in their communities as an infringementon their right to control theirown communities. Citizens and public officials ask why localities should be forced to give a permitto expand or build a new landfill larger than the size of what the local area needs to deal with its own waste disposal problems. The aversion to large landfills is based on the following points: (a) Landfills are risky; the larger the landfill, the more risk involved. (b) Landfills are difficult to site and should be considered a public resource to regulate and to protect and conserve the public interest.

2. "Out-of-state garbage" connotes "urban garbage." Garbage coming across the state line from neighboring communities is not seen as a problem. Opposition to out-ofstate garbage is based on the fear of "urban garbage" coming in that often contains infectious hospital and hazardous wastes that might be disposed of illegally. Urban garbage also implies the increased risk of organized crime involvement. The presence of organized crime in the waste disposal industry has been documented in New York City and New Jersey.

3. A large influx of capital from one source influences the social fabric andbalance of power in rural communities. The tremendous flows of capital and profits generated in large landfills are thought to create a base of power in the local community. In small rural communities, that presence is considered even more dramatic and will affect social relations in the community. Experience in West Virginia has shown that the stakes are high for developers, and that they have sometimes used a number of incentives and sweeteners to get a Class A landfill permit (permitting over 10,000 tons a month) from the county. Besides promoting the intrinsic benefits of good landfills, developers have offered lucrative host fee agreements, provided employment, reduced tipping fees to the local community, promised free infrastructure improvements such as industrial parks or sewer lines, and made contributions to local charities. When that has not worked, they have threatened lawsuits, or, in some cases, actually filed lawsuits against oppositional groups, county commissioners, and the state. Landfills, of course, are not unique in their impact on the social and political fabric of small rural towns. It is not unusual for a private business entity to use whatever leverage it has to accomplish its goals. Well-documented is the economic dependence of other industries on absentee owners and the disregard some of these outside firms have for the negative impact on local communities.

4. West Virginians percei . ve a stigma from taking out-of-state garbage. One of the most difficult aspects of landfills is the perception of a stigma attached to taking other people's trash. By its very nature, garbage is perceived of as the least redeeming aspect of society. The stigma also involves the 11 anticipatory fear" of becoming associated with a potentially hazardous waste site. Citizens and government officials who were interviewed for this survey and who testified at public hearings pointed to West Virginia's long history of dominance by outside timber, coal, oil and gas interests. Out-of-state garbage was considered the most recent example of exploitation by outsiders and outside regions. Interviewees believed that suggestions of a landfill industry in West Virginia are an affront to the state's dignity, and that nothing is more demeaning than to take someone else's garbage. Thus, whether or not outsiders actually view West Virginia as a dumping ground or whether contamination has actually occurred, West Virginians perceive this to be the case. On the other hand, the particular ownership and control of landfills may have an important effect on the perception of the stigma involved with outside waste. For example, out-of-state garbage is not an issue in Marion County. Its publiclyowned-and-controlled landfill was the first to take in a small amount of wastefrom Philadelphia (70 tons perday) in order to reduce the costs of waste disposal to its residents. The volume has not been noticeable, and the issue has not caught local public attention.

Public Sentiment

Adverse public sentiment is directed towards poorly sited landfills or large landfillsthat increasethe perceived environmental risks, deplete valuable landfill space more quickly than smaller landfills, and import out-of-state garbage. Data from a public opinion survey conducted in 1987 suggest that public sentiment in West Virginia is not necessarily antilandfill. On the other hand, the data do not show whetherthe people would support a landfill in their own communities, and if so, under what conditions. These types of data would require an in-depth survey of public attitudes.

Mitigation Techniques

The most important mitigation technique is the proper siting of a landfill in an area where water sources and commercial and residential areas are less likely to be threatened. Adverse economic impacts of landfills, such as the stress on local infrastructure or highways, can be ameliorated by payment of user fees. Similarly, a property value assurance program can require landfill operators to pay adjacent property owners the full market value of their properties, Groundwater pollution is much more difficult to mitigate since the scope and costs of a potential disaster are unknown.

The Regulatory Structure

Passage by the West Virginia Legislature of House Bill 3146 in 1988 and Senate Bill 301 in 1989 expanded state and local government responsibilities for planning and regulating solid waste facilities in West Virginia. This legislation, arising from both an in-state solid waste disposal crisis and apprehension due to the increased importation of out-of-state garbage, created rational and comprehensive mechanisms for public and local decision makers to deal with current and future solid waste issues.

House Bill 3146 provides for application requirements and more stringent performance standards for landfills. The bill also prohibits open dumps or burning of household garbage. In addition, all solid waste generators must dispose of their waste in an approved manner.

Several problems are expected to emerge as these bills are implemented. In the first instance, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the main regulatory agency, must improve regulations and monitoring systems as well as its ability to coordinate the regulatory system with seven other agenices which also have oversight responsibilities. The biggest problem will be regulating an industry with little history of regulation in the state.

Many of the existing landfills in West Virginia are small and lack sufficient capital to make the required investments to meet new environmental standards. The DNR will not grandfather existing facilities. However, existing landfills may be able to receive a state permit by phasing in investments and showing good faith efforts to comply with the new law over time.

House Bill 3146 also gives counties jurisdiction over the size and location of landfills. Any landfill accepting over 10,000 tons of refuse per month has to obtain approval from a county or regional solid waste authority. The original law included the criterion of public sentiment as a basis for denying a permit application. Soon after passage of the act, however, the public sentiment clause was challenged in court. The U.S. District Court ruled that the West Virginia code does not fully define public sentiment or provide a process for defining public sentiment.2 Therefore, until the language in the code is amended, counties cannot deny a landfill permit based solely on public sentiment-, rejection must be based upon other technical problems with an application.

Senate Bill 301 added further technical criteria for evaluating landfill applications. One such requirement was for solid waste authorities to develop commercial solid waste facility siting plans by July 1, 1990. These plans areto identify zones within each county which permit or prohibit the siting of:

1. Commercial solid waste landfills which accept more than ten thousand tons of solid waste per month

2. Commercial solid waste landfills which accept less than ten thousand tons of solid waste per month

3. Commercial solid waste transfer stations or facilities for the processing or recycling of solid waste.

The siting plans are to be prepared according to the following criteria:

1. Efficient disposal of solid waste, including all solid waste generated within the county and region;

2. Economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental impacts of the landfills;

3. Potential land uses for residential, commercial, recreational, and environment conservation or industrial purposes.

Senate Bill 301 authorized the West Virginia State Solid Waste Management Board to make grants available to solid waste authoritiesto help them prepare their plans. The grants are financed by an interim solid waste assessment fee of $1 per ton, which will expire on June 30,1991. The West Virginia State Solid Waste Management Board has the authority to prepare and adopt a siting plan for any solid waste authority which fails to submit a plan to them.

The broad criteria for siting landfills gives counties a great deal of latitude to determine technical inadequacies of landfill sites and is another means of controlling the size of landfills and importation of out-of-state garbage. Other states are looking at ways of linking landfill permits to the actual needs for waste disposal in the region as determined by a solid waste plan. A permit would be given to a private contractorbased onthetonnage neededforthe local region, with the provision that local needs be satisfied first. This may be a promising option forWest Virginiato control utilization of its landfill resources.

Future Research and Policy Directions

House Bill 3146 and Senate Bill 301 represent landmark solid waste disposal legislation for West Virginia and are major steps towards building the regulatory and planning capacity needed in the state to mitigate adverse impact of landfills. Many of the planning and regulatory systems set forth in these bills have not yet been implemented. Although it is premature to suggest major changes in the legislation, the following topics are suggested for further research and future policy options:

1. Assess the systems and personnel needed at the DNR for undertaking a much expanded regulatory role.

2. Launch a community education program on waste disposal and the options available to counties.

3. Conduct further research on the economic development impact of landfills, including studies of the elasticity of demand for landfill space in West Virginia, and the impact of landfills on industrial location and tourism.

4. Assess the legal potential for controlling garbage flows through solid waste plans, and restrictions on landfills accepting state financing.

5. Assess strategies for lowering waste disposal costs and preventing illegal dumping.

6. Improve the process of siting landfills by predetermining areas in the state which have suitable site conditions, using formal negotiation processes, and investigating what other communities have done to elicit public sentiment.