HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Diversion Staff MemoTo: Board of County Commissioners
From: Timm Schimke
Re: Proposed legislation by the Department of Environmental Quality
Date: September 25,2014
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is preparing a legislative proposal for the
2015 legislative session. They have been working with a stakeholder group of which I have am
a member over the last year to update the State's Opportunity to Recycle Act.
Background
The original Opportunity to Recycle Act was implemented in 1991 and established the following:
• A list of principal recyclables for each County that must be included in any collection
program or recycling drop off location
• A waste diversion mandate for each County. Deschutes County was required to attain a
25% waste diversion rate.
• A list of 9 program elements that could be implemented in order to reach the diversion
mandate such as curbside collection of recyclables, enhanced education and promotion,
multi-family dwelling recycling, etc ...
• A requirement that all cities over a certain size implement a number of program
elements. For cities with a population over 10,000, 5 of the 9 listed program elements
were required to be implemented.
• If a County did not reach its diversion mandate, the affected cities in the County would
have to implement additional program elements.
• The State wanted to encourage work in areas "up stream" of recycling as well, so
established the 2% credit program where Counties could be granted up to 6% in
additional diversion credit for doing work in the areas of waste reduction, reuse, and
backyard composting. Deschutes County has qualified for these additional 6% credits
each year.
• In addition to County diversion, the Act established a general state wide diversion goal
as well.
The Act was updated after the deadline for reaching the diversion mandates had passed and
most Counties had met their mandate. This effort was to basically establish new diversion goals
for Counties and the State. The major change to the original approach was that additional
diversion rates would be goals rather than mandates and there was no consequences for not
meeting the new goal. Deschutes County adopted a 45% goal. This was very aggressive, but
we have attained that level of diversion.
The Proposed Legislation
The proposed legislation has 3 aspects that DEQ would like to address:
1. DEQ's Solid Waste program is funded through facility permit fees and a per ton fee on
materials disposed in landfills in the state. This fee was established in 1991 and has not
been adjusted since. Inflation over the years as well as the recent economic downturn
has required significant reductions in DEQ's efforts in the area beyond simple permit
compliance and facilities oversight. Proposed legislation hopes to increase the fee,
establish some ongoing adjustments to the fees to account for inflation, and possible
include some mechanism to account for reductions in tons disposed which results in
reductions in revenue.
2. The proposed legislation will overhaul and expand the program elements list that cities
have available for them to meet their requirements. The list will probably be expanded
for 9 elements to 13 elements. It is also proposed that the number of program elements
a city must implement be increased. For Bend and Redmond, which are the only cities
in Deschutes County to be affected by this, the requirement will probably be increased
from 5 of 9 program elements to 7 of 13 elements.
This effort will also eliminate the 2% credit program, but make efforts in those areas one
of the 13 elements a city may choose to implement.
3. Lastly, the proposed legislation will establish new diversion goals for Counties and the
State. The emphasis remains that these will be aspirational goals rather than mandates
and there will be no consequences to not meeting these goals. We will have until 2025
to meet the new goal. Each County has been asked to choose their goal to be included
in the legislation.
DEQ will also begin measuring diversion in terms of energy savings as well as the
traditional approach of counting tons. This will allow us to focus our energies in areas
that provide the most environmental benefit rather than simply looking for tons. I have
attached an information sheet developed by DEQ that talks about the proposed
legislation.
With the elimination of the 2% credit program, Deschutes County's diversion rate will drop from
45% to 39%. I believe that at a minimum, we should maintain our current 45% diversion goal
and strive to offset the 6% drop that will result from the loss of the 2% credit program. We have
a 10 year window to accomplish this, but feel a 6% increase in diversion over that period of time
is a fairly aggressive goal. We could consider stretching a bit more and set a 50% goal, but I
would not be comfortable with anything beyond that. I do not need an official Board vote on this
although you are welcome to do so if you would like. I am interested in your individual thoughts
regarding this legislation.