Assignment # 6: Applying Cohen's five frameworks to Interstate Transport of Solid Waste (H. R. 274)

1. Values Framework
     The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states or local governments cannot make a law or regulations to ban or place special burdens on out-of-state waste under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, as the public’s awareness of environment increased, the citizen have interested in the negative impacts that solid waste disposal could have such as land degradation, ground water contamination, air pollution, and so forth. Thus, proponents of Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act propose to give states authority to rule import and export solid waste in order to manage solid waste effectively.

     The problem of interstate transport of solid waste arose because the interstate garbage is increased rapidly while the facilities to handle the garbage such as incinerators, landfills, and so on. Moreover the fear of health risk caused by dumping solid waste leads the phenomenon of NIMBY - ‘not in my backyard,’ in order to avoid the potential environmental threat. William Gormley says tath "States can readily export their problems to other states." New York City closed the incinerators and chose to export the garbage to other states. However, the exporting garbage creates other environmental problems such as air pollution, highway congestion, and noise through transport of solid waste services. The price of transport garbage increasing endlessly is a pivotal role to exacerbate the government’s economics.

2. Political framework
     The Supreme Court held that “all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded” (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978, p. 622). According to several cases, the Supreme Court interprets the interstate transport of solid waste in aspects of interstate commerce aspects. Thus the differentials fees issued by Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al. (1994) were regarded as discrimination against interstate commerce. In contrast, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that Interstate transport of solid waste should be considered in aspect of justifiable safety and health issue of states rather than commerce aspects.

3. Science &technology framework
     The biggest garbage exporters are New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while the biggest garbage importers are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Science tell us that transport outputs from trucks, trains and barges are Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases, and so on, and this pollutants impact on human health. According to researches, cancer, respiratory illness, and birth defects are increased more in the area of disposal than other area. In addition, disposal outputs from landfills and incinerators causes climate change, water-related illness, and reproductive and development problems. There is not any scientific uncertainty or scientific disagreements against those negative impacts of interstate transport of solid waste.

4. Policy design framework
      The Solid Waste Transportation Act 2005 proposed by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, proposes “to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators” (cited by Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act 2005 midterm briefing, 2005). Congress has the power to override the dormant Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court asserts that states cannot regulate out-of-state waste at all through the cases: Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan (1992), Chemical Waste Mgmt. v. Hunt (1992), and Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Oregon (1994), and so on. However, the intergovernmental tensions between law and policy in the area of interstate transport of solid waste will continue.

5. Management framework
     According to Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, States has authority to establish the amount of out-of-state waste, require a permit for a new or expanded facility of disposal waste. Moreover, states could require inspectors to be onsite during operation of a facility that receives out-of-state waste. Each state has different circumstances to adopt environmental policy. Nobody coerce sacrifice for others. Thus, to make a good management framework of solid waste would be another challenge to the importers. Cohen (2006) suggests that “Solutions must take into account the various dimensions of each issue regarding values, politics, technology, policy, and management and also consider their interaction” (p. 60).